THE   AGREEMENT 


BETWEEN 


UNION    SEMINARY    AND    THE    GENERAL 
ASSEMBLY. 


A  CHAPTER  SUPPLEMENTARY  TO  "  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  THE  UNION 
THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY  IN  THE  CITY  OF  NEW  YORK. 


BY 


GEORGE   L.   PRENTISS, 

Professor  in  the  Institution. 


M.W.'S? 


^  PRINCETON.  N.J.  "^ 


BV  4070  .U66  P7  1892 
Prentiss,  George  Lewis,  181 

-1903. 
The  agreement  between  Union 

Seminary  and  the  General 


THE    AGREEMENT^<', 


BETWEEN 

UNION    SEMINARY    AND    THE    GENERAL 
ASSEMBLY. 


A  CHAPTER  SUPPLEMENTARY  TO  "  FIFTY  YEARS  OF  THE  UNION 
THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY  IN  THE  CITY  OF  NEW  YORK. 


BY 


GEORGE   L.   PRENTISS, 

Professor  in  the  Institution. 


NEW  YORK: 
ANSON   D.  F.  RANDOLPH  &   COMPANY, 

38   WEST  TWENTY-THIRD   STREET. 


Copyright,  1891,  by 
ANSON   D.    F.   RANDOLPH   &  COMPANY. 

Copyright,  1892,  by 
ANSON   D.    F.   RANDOLPH  &  COMPANY. 


PRESS  OF 

EDWARD    O.    JENKIN 

HEW    rORK. 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

Action  of  the  Joint  Committee  on  Reunion  with  regard 
TO  THE  Theological  Seminaries,       .       .  .       .      1 

n. 

The  Veto  in  the  Election  of  its  Professors  as  Conceded 
BY  Union  Seminary  to  the  General  Assembly,    .        .      7 

(a).  Origin  and  design  of  Union  Theological  Seminary,        .      9 

(J).  Reasons  and  influences  that  induced  Union  Seminary, 

in  1870,  to  give  up  a  portion  of  its  avtanomy,      .        .     12 

(c).  Action  and  purpose  of  the  Board  of  Directors  in  making 

this  concession 24 

{d).  Did  the  Board  of  Directors  of  Union  Seminary  suppose 
that  in  their  action  on  May  16,  1870,  they  were  offer- 
ing to  enter  into  a  legal  compact  with  the  General 
Assembly? 29 

(e).  Scope  and  limitations  of  the  reto  in  the  election  of  its 
Professors  offered  to  the  General  Assembly  by  th£ 
Directors  of  Union  Seminary  in  1870,        .        .        .34 

(/).  Acceptance  of  the  offer  of  Union  Seminary  made  to  the 

General  Assembly  in  its  memorial  of  1870,  ,        .    41 

III. 

Sketch  of  the  Operation  and  Effects  of  the  Assembly's 
Veto  Power  in  the  Election  of  Theological  Profes- 
sors FROM  1870  TO  THE  PRESENT  TIME,  ....      48 

(a).  Early  and  frequent  misapprehension  of  the  extent  of  this 

power  on  the  part  of  the  General  Assembly,         .        .    49 

(iii) 


IV  CONTENTS, 

>'AGE 

(b).   Quiescence  of  the  Assembly's  veto  power  from  1870  to 

1891 51 

(c).   Sudden  use  of  the  veto  power  in  1S91 52 

(d).  The  General  Assembly  at  Detroit,  and  how  to  judge  its 

course, 55 

(e).    The  case  against  Dr.   Briggs  as  argiued  by  John  J. 

McCook 60 

(/).  The  Standing  Committee  on   Tlieological  Seminaries ; 

its  report  and  the  action  of  the  Assembly,     .        .        .70 

(g).    Union  Theological  Seminary  in  its  relations  to  Prince- 
ion 91 

(h).  The  action  at  Detroit  in  tTie  case  of  Dr.  Briggs  as  an 

eye-opener, 103 

(»■).   A  word  in  conclusion, 121 

APPENDIX. 

L  The  establishment  of  the  Edward  Robinson  Chair  of  Biblical 

Theology,  124 

II.  2Vie  Inauguration,  and  the  Rev.  Dr.  David  R.  Frazer's  charge,  139 

III.  Resolutions  of  the  Board  of  Directors  sustaining  Dr.  Briggs,  .  137 

IV.  Statement  of  the  Faculty, 137 

V.  Further  about  the  Gifts  of  Governor  Morgan  and  Mr.  Jamei 

Brown,        ..........  145 


NOTE. 


The  following  paper,  prepared  last  summer,  is  now 
published  in  the  hope  that  it  may  serve  to  correct  some 
misapprehensions,  which  have  widely  prevailed  with  re- 
gard to  the  Union  Theological  Seminary  in  its  relations 
to  the  General  Assembly  and  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

New  York,  October  24,  1891. 


THE  AGREEMENT  OF  1870 

BETWEEN  XJNION  SEMINARY  AND  THE  GENERAL 
ASSEMBLY. 

A  CHAPTER  8UPPLEMEKTARY  TO 

"FIFTY  TEARS  OF   THE  UNION  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY,  IN 
THE  CITY  OF  NEW  YORK." 


In  the  historical  address  delivered  at  the  semi-centenary 
of  Union  Seminary,  in  1886,  there  was  only  a  passing  allu- 
sion to  this  agreement.  Nor  had  it  attracted  any  special 
attention  until  early  in  the  present  year.  Then,  all  at  once, 
it  began  to  be  discussed  in  the  religious  newspapers ;  at 
first  mildly  and  somewhat  hesitatingly,  but  later  in  a  very 
earnest  and  positive  manner.  As  the  meeting  of  the 
General  Assembly  drew  near,  the  motive  of  this  discussion 
became  apparent.  The  agreement  of  1870,  as  interpreted 
by  the  opponents  of  Dr.  Briggs  in  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
gave  the  General  Assembly  power  to  forbid  his  transfer  to 
the  new  chair  of  Biblical  Theology ;  and  no  sooner  had  the 
Assembly  actually  met  than  its  purpose  to  exercise  this  power 
was  unmistakable.  On  the  29th  of  May  it  disapproved  of 
Dr.  Briggs'  transfer  by  an  overwhelming  vote.  This  action 
of  the  General  Assembly  of  1891,  whether  regarded  in  its 
bearing  upon  the  Presbyterian  Church  or  upon  the  Union 
Seminary,  is  fraught  with  consequences  of  the  utmost  im- 
portance. In  the  following  paper  I  propose  to  consider  the 
subject  in  this  twofold  bearing ;  and  I  shall  try  to  do  so 
without  passion  or  prejudice.     A  better  understanding  of 


2  UNION   SEMINARY   AND   THE  ASSEMBLY. 

the  whole  subject  will  help,  perhaps,  to  allay  some  of  the 
passions  and  prejudices  which  unhappily  its  discussion  has 
aroused.  My  aim  will  be  to  set  forth,  as  clearly  and  suc- 
cinctly as  possible,  the  main  points  which  seem  to  me  to  be 
involved  in  the  controversy,  and  thus  to  aid  those  whose 
minds  are  not  yet  fully  made  up,  in  reaching  a  just  conclu- 
sion. 


ACTION  OF   THE  JOINT  COMMITTEE  ON   REUNION  WITH    REGARD 
TO   THE    THEOLOGICAL   SEMINARIES. 

The  question  of  the  Theological  Seminaries  was  one  of 
the  most  difficult  and  perplexing  with  which  the  Joint  Com- 
mittee, appointed  in  1866,  had  to  deal.  This  was  owing 
partly  to  the  nature  of  the  subject,  and  in  part  to  the  great 
diversity  of  origin,  constitution,  environment,  and  legal  re- 
lations which  marked  these  institutions. 

The  9th  Article  of  "  the  proposed  terms  of  reunion  be- 
tween the  two  branches  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  the 
United  States  of  America,"  reported  by  the  chairmen,  Drs. 
Beatty  and  Adams,  to  their  respective  Assemblies,  in  May, 
1867,  was  as  follows: 

If  at  any  time,  after  the  union  has  been  effected,  any  of 
the  theological  seminaries  under  the  care  and  control  of  the 
General  Assembly,  shall  desire  to  put  themselves  under  sjti- 
odical  control,  they  shall  be  permitted  to  do  so  at  the  request 
of  their  Boards  of  Directors  ;  and  those  seminaries  which  are 
independent  in  their  organization  shall  have  the  privilege  of 
putting  themselves  under  ecclesiastical  control,  to  the  end 
that,  if  practicable,  a  system  of  ecclesiastical  supervision  of 
such  institutions  may  ultimately  prevail  through  the  entire 
united  Church. 

The  9th  Article,  as  reported  by  the  Joint  Committee  and 


THE  JOINT   COMMITTEE   ON   SEMINARIES.  3 

adopted  by  the  two  General  Assemblies  in  1868,  varied 
somewhat  from  this.     It  was  as  follows : 

In  order  to  a  uniform  system  of  ecclesiastical  supervision 
those  theological  seminaries  that  are  now  under  Assembly 
control  may,  if  their  Boards  of  Direction  so  elect,  be  trans- 
ferred to  the  watch  and  care  of  one  or  more  of  the  adjacent 
synods,  and  the  other  seminaries  are  advised  to  introduce,  as 
far  as  may  be,  into  their  constitutions,  the  principle  of  Syn- 
odical  or  Assembly  supervision  ;  in  which  case  they  shall  be 
entitled  to  an  official  recognition  and  approbation  on  the  part 
of  the  General  Assembly. 

The  changes  in  the  Article  are  highly  significant,  and  in- 
dicate several  points  of  objection  made  to  it  as  reported  in 
1867.  This  amended  Article  reappeared  among  the  "  Con- 
current Declarations"  of  the  General  Assemblies  of  1869. 
In  explaining  it  in  their  report  of  1868,  the  chairmen  said : 

A  7'ecommendation  looking  to  some  uniformity  of  ecclesi- 
astical supervision,  is  all  which  the  Committee  felt  to  be  with- 
in their  province  or  that  of  the  Assembly  ;  except  that  those 
seminaries,  now  belonging  to  either  branch  of  the  Church, 
should  have  every  guarantee  and  protection  for  their  char- 
tered rights  which  they  might  desire. 

This  passage,  both  in  its  mild,  even  subdued,  tone,  and  in 
its  explanation,  throws  a  clear  light  back  upon  the  devious 
path  by  which  the  Committee  had  reached  their  conclusion. 
The  discussion  and  criticism  occasioned  by  their  plan,  as  re- 
ported in  1867,  had  convinced  them  that  the  whole  subject 
was  beset  with  difficulties  and  perils,  which  required  very 
delicate  as  well  as  skillful  treatment.  "^  recommendation  " 
(the  italics  are  their  own)  "  looking  to  some  uniformity  of 
ecclesiastical  supervision,  is  all  which  the  Committee  felt  to 
be  within  their  province  or  that  of  the  Assembly  ";  except 
that  the  ^''chartered  rights  "  of  all  the  seminaries  of  either 


4  UNION   SEMINARY   AND   THE   ASSEMBLY. 

branch  of  the  Church,  should  be  carefully  guaranteed  and 
protected.  This  was  quite  different  language  from  that  used 
in  1867 :  "  Those  seminaries  which  are  independent  in  their 
organization,  shall  have  the  privilege  of  putting  themselves 
under  ecclesiastical  control.'''' 

The  temper  of  mind,  as  also  the  way,  in  which  the  Joint 
Committee  and  the  friends  of  reunion  generally  had  come  to 
regard  the  question  of  the  theological  seminaries,  may  be  seen 
most  distinctly,  perhaps,  in  the  speech  of  Rev.  George  W. 
Musgrave,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  made  on  the  occasion  of  the  pres- 
entation of  the  report  of  the  Joint  Committee  of  Confer- 
ence to  the  Old  School  General  Assembly  sitting  in  the 
Brick  Church  in  the  city  of  New  York,  May  27, 1869.  No 
one  who  heard  it  is  likely  ever  to  forget  that  speech  or  the 
remarkable  old  man  who  made  it.  A  few  extracts  will  in- 
dicate its  spirit  and  its  bearing  on  the  question  now  under 
discussion.     Its  opening  sentences  are  as  follows : 

It  affords  me  great  pleasure  to  be  able  to  report  a  plan  of 
union  between  what  are  known  as  the  Old  and  New  School 
bodies,  and  to  be  able  to  say  that  our  report  is  unanimous, 
and  is  signed  by  every  member  of  each  Committee.  The 
Joint  Committee  report  three  papers  to  the  Assembly.  The 
Jirst  is  a  plan  of  union,  containing  the  basis,  which  will  be 
sent  down  to  the  presbyteries  for  their  acceptance  or  rejec- 
tion. The  second  paper  is  a  declaration,  made  that  there  may 
be  a  good  understanding  between  the  two  branches.  This 
paper  is  not  a  compact  or  covenant,  but  it  is  a  recommendation 
of  certain  arrangements  as  to  seminaries,  boards,  etc.  It  is 
no  part  of  the  basis  or  terms  of  union.  It  only  recommends 
certain  arrangements  as  suitable  to  be  adopted.  The  third 
paper  is  one  recommending  a  day  of  prayer  to  Almighty  God 
for  His  guidance  and  presence,  that  presbyteries  may  be 
under  Divine  influence  when  they  come  to  vote  upon  this 
momentous  question. 


THE  JOINT   COMMITTEE   ON   SEMINARIES.  0 

In  the  course  of  his  speech  Dr.  Musgrave  thus  referred 
to  the  "  concurrent  declarations  "  on  theological  seminaries, 
boards,  and  other  matters  pertaining  to  the  interests  of  the 
Church,  when  it  should  become  united  : 

I  have  already  stated  to  the  Assembly  that  these  articles 
don't  form  a  part  of  the  basis.  They  are  not  a  compact  or 
covenant,  but  they  suggest  to  the  Assembly  what  are  suitable 
arrangements.  I  will  not  repeat  what  I  have  said,  except  to 
call  your  attention  to  that  important  distinction.  They  ai-e 
not  terms  of  the  union.  They  may  be  amended  or  modified, 
as  any  future  Assembly  may  deem  proper.  We  told  our 
brethren  that  we  were  unwilling  to  tie  the  future  hands  of 
the  Church  of  God;  and  I,  for  one,  was  very  decided  on  that 
point.  And  I  will  say  to  you  that  I  would  have  risked  the 
failure  of  this  union  at  the  present  time,  rather  than  concede 
that  these  articles  should  be  unchangeable,  though  I  cannot 
foresee  that  there  will  be  any  necessity  in  the  future  to  change 
them.  I  am  neither  a  prophet,  nor  the  son  of  a  prophet  ;  but 
I  think  I  have  some  Httle  common  sense,  and  I  felt  that  it 
would  be  unsafe  for  us  to  imperil  the  future  by  trammeling 
the  Church  of  God,  preventing  it  from  exercising  its  liberty, 
and  from  dealing  with  circumstances  as  they  might  arise  in 
the  providence  of  God.  Sir,  we  were  very  decided  and  de- 
termined that  those  articles  should  not  form  a  part  of  the 
compact,  but  that  they  shoiild  be  suggestions  and  recom- 
mendations, in  order  that  the  presbyteries  should  get  an 
understanding  between  the  parties.  But,  sir,  it  is  due  to 
fairness  that  I  should  say,  and  I  repeat  it  now  publicly  in 
order  that  it  may  have  a  response  from  this  house,  we  did 
say  to  these  brethren,  "  We  will  not  consent  to  make  these 
articles  a  covenant.  We  won't  adopt  them  as  a  legal  compact, 
binding  upon  the  future  ;  yet  we  are  acting  in  good  faith  and 
as  honorable  men,  and  we  say  to  you  that  we  will  not  change 
them  at  any  future  time  without  obviously  good  and  sufficient 
reasons." 


6  UNION   SEMINAEY   AND   THE  ASSEMBLY. 

It  is  needless  to  add,  that  the  wisdom  of  proposing  and 
adopting  these  articles  in  the  sense  not  of  a  legal  compact, 
but  of  judicious,  suitable  arrangements,  very  soon  became 
apparent.  Dr.  Musgrave's  expressions,  "We  told  our 
brethren,"  "We  did  say  to  these  brethren,"  refer  to  the 
New  School  brethren,  and  are  explained  by  the  following 
extract  from  a  sketch  of  "  The  Assemblies  of  1869,"  writ- 
ten by  the  Kev.  Dr.  M.  W.  Jacobus,  Moderator  of  the  Old 
School  Assembly : 

It  may  be  mentioned,  as  part  of  the  inside  history  of  the 
negotiations,  that  when  the  Joint  Sub-Committee  met  for  the 
pui-pose  of  engrossing  what  had  been  passed  upon  by  the 
Joint  Committee  of  Conference,  and  to  prepare  the  report  to 
the  Assembly,  one  of  the  members  (N.  S.)  objected  to  the  in- 
sertion of  the  words  contained  in  the  preamble  to  the  con- 
current declarations,  viz.  :  "  not  as  articles  of  compact  or 
covenant,  but  as  in  their  judgment  proper  and  equitable 
arrangements."  He  admitted  that  the  language  fairly  ex- 
pressed what  had  been  agioed  upon,  that  the  articles  referred 
to  were  merely  recommended,  and  if  adopted  by  the  imited 
Church  might  hereafter,  for  good  and  sufficient  reasons,  be 
modified  or  repealed.  But  he  argued  that  the  insertion  of 
the  words  above  referred  to  would  make  the  impression 
that  the  articles  are  ephemeral,  and  would  have  a  tendency 
to  invite  change.  There  was  force  in  the  objection.  But  to 
this  it  was  well  replied,  that  the  words  ought  to  be  inserted  : 
1.  Because  they  fairly  express  our  mutual  good  under- 
standings. 2,  Because,  if  omitted,  i<  might  be  hereafter  argued 
that  the  articles  loere  intended  to  he  a  compact  between  the  two 
parties,  which  could  not  be  honorably  modified  or  repealed.  3. 
Because  it  was  held  to  be  in  the  highest  degree  important 
that  the  united  Church  should  be  left  entirely  free  to  adapt 
itself  to  any  changes  which,  in  the  future  development  of 
Providence,  might  be  deemed  either  necessary  or  expedient. 
This  difference  threatened  to  be  a  stumbling-block  in  the 


THE   CONCESSION   OF  THE  VETO   POWER.  7 

way,  even  within  reach  of  the  goal.  At  this  very  crisis,  how- 
ever, an  eminent  layman  of  the  New  School  committee  joined 
in  this  view  of  the  case,  with  such  cogent  reasons  as  to  prove 
the  correctness  of  the  position.  Upon  re-examination  of  the 
paragraph,  the  dissent  was  revoked,  and  the  entire  paper 
was  then  adopted  by  a  unanimous  vote.  This  meeting  of  the 
Joint  Sub-Committee  was  held  on  the  evening  preceding  the 
day  of  presenting  the  report  to  the  General  Assembly,  and 
it  was  not  until  eleven  o'clock  at  night  that  the  decisive  vote 
was  reached  in  the  committee-room. 

II. 

THE   VETO   IN   THE    ELECTION  OF  ITS  PROFESSORS  AS  CONCEDED 
BY    UNION    SEMINARY   TO   THE   GENERAL   ASSEMBLY. 

We  come  now  to  a  main  object  of  this  paper,  the  occa- 
sion, meaning,  and  force  of  the  veto  power  offered  and 
given  to  the  General  Assembly  in  1870  by  Union  Semi- 
nary. I  have  shown  what  was  the  action  of  the  Joint  Com- 
mittee respecting  the  theological  seminaries  up  to  the  time 
of  the  reunion.  As  the  result  of  long  and  patient  con- 
sideration, aided  by  varied  discussion  throughout  the  two 
Churches,  the  ninth  article,  or  concurrent  declaration,  al- 
ready given,  had  been  reported  to  the  General  Assemblies 
and  adopted  by  both  bodies.  This  article  was  a  "  recom- 
mendation "  and  nothing  more.  So  the  case  stood,  when 
the  first  General  Assembly  of  the  united  Church  met  at 
Philadelphia,  in  May,  1870.  The  work  of  this  Assembly 
was  principally  one  of  readjustment  and  reconstruction. 
The  articles  approved  by  the  two  Assemblies  at  New  York 
in  1869,  not  as  a  part  of  the  basis  of  union,  or  as  a  legal 
compact,  but  as  "  suitable  arrangements,"  were  now  to  be 
acted  upon.  The  varying,  not  to  say  more  or  less  conflict- 
ing, institutions,  legal  rights,  customs,  agencies,  properties, 


8  UNION   SEMINARY   AND   THE  ASSEMBLY. 

and  activities  of  both  branches,  Old  School  and  New,  now  no 
longer  two  but  one,  were  all  to  be  brought  into  harmonious 
relations,  in  accordance  with  the  changed  order  of  things 
and  the  new  organic  life.  I  was  a  member  of  the  Assem- 
bly of  1870,  and  can  testify,  as  an  eye-witness,  that  its  ruling 
spirit,  from  beginning  to  end,  was  the  spirit,  not  of  fear,  or 
suspicion,  or  jealousy,  or  any  such  thing,  but  of  power  and 
of  love,  and  of  a  sound  mind.  The  presence  of  the  stur- 
diest, foremost  opponent  of  reunion,  Dr.  Charles  Hodge,  if 
not  as  a  commissioner,  yet  as  a  most  interested  looker-on 
and  even  friendly  adviser,  along  with  the  beautiful  tribute 
of  high  regard  and  affection  paid  by  !New  and  Old  School 
men  alike  to  Albert  Barnes,  then  about  to  pass  to  his  great 
reward,  happily  symbolized  this  spirit. 

As  might  have  been  anticipated,  William  Adams  was 
placed  at  the  head  of  the  standing  committee  on  theological 
seminaries.  As  chairman  of  the  New  School  part  of  the 
joint  committee  on  reunion,  he  had  won  the  confidence 
and  admiration  of  the  whole  Church,  alike  by  his  wisdom, 
liis  Christian  temper,  his  felicitous  addresses,  and  his  mas- 
terly reports.  One  of  his  colleagues  on  the  committee,  the 
late  beloved  Dr.  Shaw,  of  Rochester,  wrote  to  him  :  "  The 
Church  owes  to  you  so  large  a  debt  that  no  one  but  God  is 
rich  enough  to  pay  it."  But  inasmuch  as  all  the  theological 
seminaries  connected  with  the  Assembly  belonged  to  the  Old 
School,  Dr.  Adams  felt  that  delicacy  forbade  his  acting  as 
chairman  of  the  committee  on  that  subject.  He,  therefore, 
as  a  personal  favor,  asked  permission  to  decline  the  appoint- 
ment, suggesting  Dr.  John  C.  Backus  in  his  place.  But 
the  Assembly  insisted  that  he  should  serve. 

"I  think,"  said  Dr.  Musgrave,  himself  a  director  of 
Princeton,  "  the  moderator  has  shown  his  wisdom  in  ap- 
pointing a  man  so  entirely  acceptable  to  all  this  house. 
We  have  no  rivalship,  no  jealousies,  no  fear,  but  perfect 


THE  CONCESSION   OF  THE   VETO   POWER.  9 

confidence  and  love,  and  the  Old  School  men  would  rather 
Dr.  Adams  should  be  in  that  position,  because  he  was  once 
a  New  School  man.  We  have  this  additional  evidence  that 
we  are  one."  * 

And  now,  before  proceeding  further,  let  us  return  to 
LFiiion  Seminary  and  the  veto  power  offered  by  it  to  the 
General  Assembly  in  the  election  of  its  professors.  In 
order  to  present  the  subject  more  clearly,  I  will  touch 
briefly  upon  several  points  bearing  on  it. 

{a).  Origin  and  design  of  Union  Theological  Seminary. 

The  Union  Theological  Seminary  was  intended  not  only 
to  be  a  new  school  of  divinity,  but  also,  as  such,  to  repre- 
sent a  distinct  type  of  religious  thought,  sentiment,  and 
policy.  It  differed  in  important  respects  from  Andover, 
from  Princeton,  and  from  Auburn.  It  was  largely  the 
growth  at  once  of  the  fervid  evangelistic  spirit  of  the  time, 
and  of  that  devotion  to  the  cause  of  sacred  science  and  a 
learned  ministry,  which  marked  all  the  churches  of  Puritan 
origin.  In  establishing  it,  the  founders,  who  were  earnest, 
practical  men,  aimed  to  embody  in  a  permanent  form  cer- 
tain views  of  Christian  piety  and  theological  training, 
which  they  regarded  as  specially  fitted  to  prepare  young 
men  for  effective  service  in  the  ministry  of  the  Gospel  in 
their  own  age.  And  in  carrying  out  these  views,  they 
took  pains  to  organize  the  institution  on  a  plan  in  harmony 
with  them.    "While  providing  carefully  for  sound  Scriptural 

*  These  two  eminent  leaders  of  the  Assembly  at  Philadel- 
phia early  attracted  the  attention  of  spectators  in  the  gal- 
leries, who  by  way  of  characterizing  their  peculiar  traits, 
jokingly  named  Dr.  Musgrave  "  Old  Unanimous,"  and  Dr. 
Adams  "  Old  Magnanimous."  See  a  letter  of  Kev.  Dr.  T.  L. 
Cuyler  in  The  Evangelist,  written  at  the  time,  in  which  is  a 
graphic  pen-picture  of  the  Assembly  of  1870. 


10  UNION   SEMINAEY   AND   THE  ASSEMBLY. 

teaching,  and  avowing  also  their  adherence  to  Presbyterian 
doctrines  and  polity,  they  at  the  same  time  resolved  to  give 
the  Seminary  perfect  freedom  and  self-control  in  the  man- 
agement of  its  own  affairs.  This  was  doubtless  the  result 
in  part  of  providential  circumstances ;  but  it  was  none  the 
less  a  result  of  deliberate  conviction  and  purpose.  Their 
noble  temper  of  mind,  their  large,  world-wide  outlook,  and 
the  sacredness  they  attached  to  their  work,  may  be  seen  in 
the  preamble  to  the  constitution  of  the  Seminary.  Here 
are  portions  of  it : 

That  the  design  of  the  founders  of  this  Seminary  may 
be  publicly  known,  and  be  sacredly  regarded  by  the  directors, 
professors,  and  students,  it  is  judged  proper  to  make  the 
following  preliminary  statement: 

A  number  of  Christians,  both  clergymen  and  laymen,  in 
the  cities  of  New  York  and  Brooklyn,  deeply  impressed  with 
the  claims  of  the  world  upon  the  Church  of  Christ,  to  fui'nish 
a  competent  supply  of  well-educated  and  pious  ministers  of 
the  Gospel ;  impressed  also  with  the  inadequacy  of  all  exist- 
ing means  for  this  purpose  ;  and  believing  that  large  cities 
furnish  many  peculiar  facihties  and  advantages  for  conduct- 
ing theological  education  ;  having,  after  several  meetings  for 
consvdtation  and  prayer,  again  convened  on  the  18th  of 
January,  a.d.  1836,  unanimously  adopted  the  following  reso- 
lution and  declarations  : 

1.  Resolved,  In  humble  dependence  on  the  grace  of  God, 
to  attempt  the  establishment  of  a  theological  seminary  in  the 
city  of  New  York. 

2.  In  this  institution  it  is  the  design  of  the  founders  to 
furnish  the  means  of  a  f uU  and  thorough  education  in  all  the 
subjects  taught  in  the  best  theological  seminaries  in  this  or 
other  countries. 

3.  Being  fuUy  persuaded  that  vital  godliness,  a  thorough 
education,  and  practical  training  in  the  works  of  benevolence 
and  pastoral  labor  are  all  essential  to  meet  the  wants  and 


THE   CONCESSION   OF  THE  VETO   POWER.  11 

promote  the  best  interests  of  the  kingdom  of  Chi'ist,  the 
founders  of  this  seminary  design  that  its  students,  remain- 
ing under  pastoral  influence,  and  performing  the  duties  of 
church  members  in  the  several  churches  to  which  they  be- 
long, or  with  which  they  worship,  in  prayer-meetings,  in  the 
instruction  of  Sabbath-schools  and  Bible-classes,  and  being 
conversant  with  all  the  benevolent  efforts  of  the  present  day 
in  this  great  community,  shaU  have  the  opportunity  of  add- 
ing to  solid  learning  and  true  piety  the  teachings  of  experi- 
ence, 

4.  By  the  foregoing  advantages,  the  founders  hope  and 
expect,  with  the  blessing  of  God,  to  call  forth  and  enlist  la 
the  service  of  Christ  and  in  the  work  of  the  ministry,  genius, 
talent,  enHghtened  piety,  and  missionary  zeal ;  and  to  qual- 
ify many  for  the  labors  and  management  of  the  various 
religious  institutions,  seminaries  of  learning,  and  enterprises 
of  benevolence  which  characteiize  the  present  times. 

The  founders  of  Union  Seminary  were  at  the  time 
mostly  pastors  or  members  of  churches,  nearly  all  of 
which,  after  the  disruption,  sided  with  the  New  School 
branch.  Of  the  clerical  directors  in  the  first  board,  one 
only  adhered  to  the  Old  School,  and  he  had  recently  come 
from  a  Congregational  pastorate  in  New  England.  Of  the 
first  lay  directors,  also,  nearly  all  belonged  to  the  New 
School.  The  founders  of  the  Seminary  were  in  hearty 
sympathy  with  Albert  Barnes,  Lyman  Beecher,  and  men 
of  that  stamp.  They  were  enthusiastic  believers  in  the 
new  Christian  evangelism  at  home  and  abroad.  They  be- 
lieved also  in  the  "  voluntary  principle,"  and  were  exceed- 
ingly jealous  of  all  "high-toned"  ecclesiasticism.  They 
hated  religious  quarrels  and  bickerings.  Their  sentiments 
on  these  and  similar  points  led  to  the  establishment  of  the 
Seminary,  found  expression  in  its  constitution,  and  have 
shaped  its  policy  from  that  day  to  this.     Here  is  their  own 


12  UNION  SEMINARY   AND   THE  ASSEMBLY. 

account  of  the  matter,  written  by  that  admirable  man, 
Erskine  Mason,  son  of  the  friend  of  Hamilton,  the  re- 
nowned Dr.  John  M.  Mason : 

It  is  the  design  of  the  founders  to  provide  a  theological 
seminary  in  the  midst  of  the  greatest  and  most  growing  com- 
munity in  America,  around  ivhich  all  men  of  moderate  views 
and  feelings,  who  desire  to  live  free  from  party  strfe^  and  to 
stand  aloof  from  all  extremes  of  doctrinal  speculation,  practical 
radicalism,  and  ecclesiastical  domination,  may  cordially  and 
affectionately  rally. 

To  keep  clear  of  all  extremes  of  "  ecclesiastical  domina- 
tion," they  made  the  Seminary  independent  alike  of  Pres- 
bytery, of  Synod,  and  of  General  Assembly.  Its  autonomy 
^7as  complete  and  unquestioned.  Nothing  could  be  more 
cordial  than  were  its  relations  with  the  New  School  Church. 
It  made  annual  reports  and  statements  to  the  General 
Assembly  touching  its  affairs :  the  elections,  transfers,  and 
deaths  of  its  professors ;  its  successive  endowments,  and  all 
things  of  general  interest.  But  the  Assembly  had  no  pro- 
prietorship or  control  over  it.  The  whole  Church  was  proud 
of  Union  Seminary,  and  the  Seminary  loved  and  honored 
the  Presbyterian  Church.  This  happy  state  of  things  con- 
tinued until  18Y0.     "Why  was  it  then  changed  ? 

(5).  Reasons  and  influences  that  induced   Union  Semi- 
nary, in  1870,  to  give  up  a  portion  of  its  autonomy. 

1.  First  of  all,  it  was  done  in  the  hope  of  furthering 
thereby  the  harmony  and  prosperity  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  Reunion  had  been  already  accomplished,  and 
Union  Seminary  had  from  the  first  thrown  the  whole 
weight  of  its  influence  in  favor  of  the  movement.  Henry 
B.  Smith  had  struck  its  keynote,  and,  later,  in  a  contest  of 
the  pen,  had  met  and  vanquished  its  ablest  foe.    Dr.  Shedd, 


THE   CONCESSION   OF  THE   VETO   POWER.  13 

in  the  General  Assembly  at  Albany,  in  1868,  had  vindicated 
the  cause  of  reunion,  and  at  the  same  time  the  orthodoxy  of 
the  New  School  against  the  charges  of  Drs.  Charles  and 
A.  A.  Hodge,  Dr.  Breckinridge,  and  other  Princeton  and 
Old  School  leaders.  Their  colleague,  Thomas  H.  Skinner, 
a  very  eminent  New  School  leader,  was  in  heartiest  sym- 
pathy with  them ;  while  William  Adams,  Jonathan  F. 
Stearns,  and  Edwin  F.  Hatfield,  all  directors  of  Union, 
had  been  among  the  most  active  members  of  the  Joint 
Committee.  Such  ardent  friends  of  reunion  as  William 
E.  Dodge,  Charles  Butler,  Richard  T.  Haines,  and  other 
noted  laymen,  also  belonged  to  the  Union  Board.  It  was 
altogether  natural,  therefore,  that  Union  Seminary  should 
have  felt  deeply  interested  in  removing,  as  far  as  possible, 
all  obstacles  to  the  complete  success  of  reunion  out  of  the 
way.  Dr.  Adams  was  especially  anxious  that  the  wheels 
of  the  great  Church  organization,  whose  strength  was  now 
doubled,  and  which  he  believed  to  be  fraught  with  vast 
power  for  good,  should  move  right  on  without  friction. 
He  wielded  at  this  time  a  greater  influence  than  any  other 
director  of  Union  Seminary,  greater  perhaps  than  any 
other  minister  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  He  was  the 
man  of  all  others  to  appeal  to  in  taking  hold  of  the 
"  plan  "  of  1870.  These  are  some  of  the  general  considera- 
tions and  motives  which  led  him  to  propose  and  the  direct- 
ors of  Union  Seminary  to  adopt  that  plan. 

2.  But  the  question  here  arises,  why  precisely  such  a 
plan,  differing  so  materially  from  that  recommended  by 
the  General  Assemblies  of  1869,  should  have  been  pro- 
posed ?  In  the  plan  recommended  by  the  General  Assem- 
blies, it  will  be  noticed,  no  mention  was  made  of  a  veto  in 
the  election  of  professors.  The  Old  School  seminaries 
might,  if  their  boards  of  direction  desired  it,  be  transferred 
from  Assembly  control  to  the  watch  and  care  of  one  or 


14  UNION   SEMINAEY   AND   THE  ASSEMBLY. 

more  of  the  adjacent  synods ;  while  the  New  School  semi- 
naries were  "  advised "  to  introduce,  as  far  as  might  be, 
into  their  constitutions  the  principle  of  synodical  or  Assem- 
bly supervision. 

Neither  of  these  recommendations  was  followed.  No 
Old  School  seminary  was  transferred  from  the  control  of 
the  General  Assembly  to  the  watch  and  care  of  one  or 
more  of  the  adjacent  synods.  Nor  did  Union  Seminary 
introduce  into  its  "  constitution "  the  principle  of  synod- 
ical or  Assembly  supervision.  This  shows  what  good  reason 
Dr.  Musgrave  had  for  saying  that  the  "  concurrent  declara- 
tions "lacked  entirely  the  binding  force  or  quality  of  a 
"legal  compact,"  and  it  shows  also  that,  with  all  their 
uncommon  ability  and  wisdom,  and  after  years  of  delibera- 
tion, the  Joint  Committee  had  recommended  what  was 
altogether  impracticable.  Between  the  great  ratification 
meeting  at  Pittsburgh  in  November,  1869,  and  the  meeting 
at  Philadelphia  in  May,  1870,  it  had  become  perfectly 
clear  that  Princeton — I  confine  myself  at  present  mainly 
to  this  seminary — could  not  be  released  from  Assembly 
control,  and  put  itself  under  the  watch  and  care  of  one 
or  more  of  the  adjacent  synods,  without  imperilling  its 
endowments.  In  this  dilemma  Union  Seminary  was  urged 
to  come  to  the  help  of  Princeton ;  nor  did  there  seem  to 
be  any  other  way  of  relief.  The  appeal  was  based  largely 
upon  a  strong  conviction,  common  to  the  wisest  and  best 
friends  of  both  seminaries,  that  the  election  of  professors 
by  the  General  Assembly  was  open  to  serious  objections, 
and  would  be  open  to  graver  objections  in  the  future. 

At  the  fomiding  of  Princeton  in  1812  the  Presbyterian 
Church  was  a  small  body,  numerically  and  territorially, 
and  the  selection  of  theological  teachers  could  very  prop- 
erly be  intrusted  to  the  knowledge  and  discretion  of  its 
General  Assembly.     The  choice  of  the  first  professors  of 


THE  CONCESSION  OF  THE  VETO   POWER.  15 

Princeton — those  very  admirable  types  of  Presbyterian 
piety,  wisdom,  and  learning,  Samuel  Miller  and  Archibald 
Alexander — was,  doubtless,  the  best  possible.  But  in  1870 
the  Presbyterian  Church  had  increased  enormously  both  in 
numbers  and  extent ;  it  covered  the  continent ;  and  its 
branches  reached  to  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  earth.  Even 
then  in  exceptional  cases,  no  doubt,  the  General  Assembly 
could  judge  as  well  as  any  board  of  directors  who  was  best 
qualified  for  this  or  that  chair  of  instruction — but  only  in 
exceptional  cases.  As  a  rule,  the  General  Assembly  was 
every  year  becoming  less  fitted  to  exercise  this  diflScult 
function. 

The  point  is  so  important  in  its  bearing  on  the  matter 
under  discussion,  that  I  will  enforce  my  position  by  that  of 
men  whose  opinions  respecting  it  are  entitled  to  special 
weight.  Here  is  an  extract  from  a  letter  of  Dr.  A.  A. 
Hodge,  written  late  in  186T : 

It  is  proper,  it  is  almost  a  necessity,  that  each  institution 
should  be  left  in  the  management  of  those  upon  whose  sup- 
port it  exclusively  depends.  The  majority  of  any  Assembly 
must  be  necessarily  ignorant  of  the  special  wants  and  local 
conditions  of  any  seminary,  and  of  the  qualifications  of  can- 
didates proposed  for  its  chairs  of  instruction.  The  best  of 
these  are  generally  young  men,  up  to  the  time  of  their 
nomination  known  only  to  a  few.  To  vest  the  choice  in  the 
General  Assembly  will  tend  to  put  prominent  ecclesiastics 
into  such  positions,  rather  than  scholars,  or  men  specially 
qualified  with  gifts  for  teaching.  As  the  population  of  our 
country  becomes  larger  and  more  heterogeneous,  and  the 
General  Assembly  increases  proportionably,  the  difficulties 
above  mentioned,  and  many  others  easily  thought  of,  will 
increase. 

Dr.  Henry  B.  Smith,  to  whom  this  letter  was  addressed, 


16  UNION   SEMINARY   AND   THE  ASSEMBLY. 

thus  expressed  his  own  view  in  noticing  some  of  the  ob- 
jections to  the  Joint  Committee's  report  of  1867: 

The  plan  allows  those  seminaries  that  are  now  under  the 
Assembly  to  remain  so,  or  if  they  choose,  to  put  themselves 
instead  under  synodical  supervision  ;  and  it  recommends 
the  seminaries  not  under  ecclesiastical  supervision  to  attain 
unto  that   condition  ;   but   does  not   insist  on   this — as   of 

course  it  could  not It  is  a  fair  and  serious  question, 

whether  a  General  Assembly,  representing  the  Presbyterian 
Church  throughout  the  whole  United  States,  especially  in 
view  of  the  numbers  in  that  Church,  and  the  extent  of  the 
territory  in  twenty  or  thirty  years,  wiU  be  the  best,  or  even  a 
suitable  body,  to  choose  the  professors  and  manage  the  con- 
cerns of  all  the  Presbyterian  seminaries  scattered  through- 
out the  country.  We  very  much  doubt  whether  this  would 
be  a  wise  arrangement.  It  may  work  well  in  Scotland,  but 
Scotland  has  its  hmits.  It  might  bring  into  the  Assembly  local, 
personal,  and  theological  questions,  which  it  would  be  better  to 
settle  in  a  narrower  field. 

The  following  strong  expression  of  opinion,  written  by 
Dr.  Adams,  is  from  the  memorial  itself  of  the  dii'ectors  of 
Union  Theological  Seminary  to  the  General  Assembly : 

It  has  appeared  to  many,  and  especially  to  those  who 
took  an  active  part  in  founding  the  Union  Theological  Semi- 
nary, that  there  are  many  disadvantages,  infehcities,  not  to 
say  at  times  perils,  in  the  election  of  professors  of  the  theo- 
logical seminaries  directly  and  immediately  by  the  General 
Assembly  itself, — abody  so  large,  in  session  for  so  short  a  time, 
and  composed  of  members  to  so  great  an  extent  resident  at  a 
distance  from  the  seminaries  themselves,  and  therefore  per- 
sonally unacquainted  with  many  things  which  pertain  to 
their  true  interests  and  usefulness. 

It  is  noteworthy  that  in  this  memorial  of  the  directors 
of  Union  Seminary,  offering  a  veto  in  the  election  of  its 


THE   CONCESSION   OF   THE  VETO   POWER.  17 

professors,  two  reasons  only  are  assigned ;  namely,  first  a 
desire,  as  was  said  before,  of  doing  all  in  their  power  to 
establish  confidence  and  harmony  throughout  the  whole 
Church ;  and,  in  the  second  place,  a  desire  to  secure  to  the 
Old  School  seminaries,  in  which  those  of  the  New  School 
were  henceforth  to  have  a  common  interest,  the  privilege, 
so  highly  prized  by  themselves,  of  choosing  professors  in 
each  institution  by  its  own  board  of  directors,  instead  of 
having  them  chosen  in  every  case  by  the  General  Assem- 
bly. On  these  two  grounds  the  memorial  of  the  board  of 
directors  of  Union  Seminary  was  chiefly  based.  These 
two  considerations  the  friends  of  Princeton  appealed  to 
with  great  force,  when  urging  Dr.  Adams  to  give  them 
aid  in  their  dilemma. 

It  was  stated  at  Detroit  that  prior  to  the  meeting  of  the 
Assembly  of  1870,  "  Dr.  Adams  conferred  with  and  fully 
submitted  his  plan  to  his  friends  at  Princeton,  who  opened 
their  arms  and  hearts  to  receive  him,  and  they  promptly 
responded  to  every  one  of  his  suggestions."  * 

This  needs  to  be  supplemented  by  the  additional  state- 
ment that  his  friends  at  Princeton  submitted  to  him  their 
plan,  and  that  he  promptly  responded  to  their  suggestions. 
It  was  no  doubt  in  response  to  their  suggestion  that  his 
original  plan  gave  to  the  General  Assembly  a  veto  in  the 
election  of  directors,  as  well  as  of  professors.  Had  that  way 
of  solving  the  problem  of  the  theological  seminaries  origi- 
nated with  Dr.  Adams,  he  would  almost  certainly  have  pro- 
posed it  during  the  troublesome  negotiations  on  this  sub- 
ject, which  ran  on  for  nearly  three  years  prior  to  the  re- 
union. There  is  no  intimation  that  he  did  anvthino;  of  the 
sort.     And  yet  the  point  had  been  made,  again  and  again, 

*  Remarks  of  John  J.  McCook,  a  Commissioner  from 
the  Presbyteiy  of  New  York,  pp.  3. 


18  UNION   SEMINARY   AND   THE  ASSEMBLY. 

by  Old  School  opponents  of  the  terms  of  reunion,  as  pro- 
posed by  the  Joint  Committee  in  their  report  to  the  As- 
semblies of  1867,  that  the  seminaries  of  both  branches  of 
the  Church  ought  in  fairness  to  be  placed  on  a  footing  of 
"  perfect  equality."  Why,  it  was  said,  should  the  Old 
School  institutions  continue  to  be  subject  to  the  full  control 
of  the  General  Assembly,  the  New  School  coming  in  for  an 
equal  share  in  its  exercise,  while  two  at  least  of  the  New 
School  institutions  continued  under  what  Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge, 
in  a  letter  to  Professor  Smith,  called  "  self -perpetuated  and 
irresponsible  boards  of  trustees."  Such  was  the  reasoning 
of  opponents  of  the  Joint  Committee's  report  of  1867. 
Indeed  so  strong  was  the  feeling  and  contention  of  some 
with  regard  to  this  point ;  so  confident  were  they  of  the 
superior  advantages  of  subjection  to  ecclesiastical  control, 
more  especially  the  control  of  the  General  Assembly,  over 
any  possible  advantages  of  subjection  to  a  board  of  di- 
rectors, or  trustees ;  and  so  persistent  were  they  in  assert- 
ing this  view,  that  upon  reviewing  their  arguments  in  the 
light  of  to-day,  one  can  scarcely  help  being  reminded  of 
the  fable,  so  dear  to  children,  entitled  "  The  Fox  without 
a  Tail."  The  fox,  it  will  be  remembered,  was  caught  in  a 
trap  by  his  tail,  and  in  order  to  get  away  was  forced  to 
leave  it  behind.  Whereupon  he  resolved  to  try  to  induce 
his  fellows  to  part  with  theirs  ;  or,  as  Henry  B.  Smith  ex- 
pressed it,  in  his  characteristic  way,  "  to  attain  unto  that 
condition."  * 


*  So  at  the  next  assembly  of  foxes  he  made  a  speech  on 
the  unprofitableness  of  tails  in  general,  and  the  inconveni- 
ence of  a  fox's  tail  in  particular,  adding  that  he  had  never 
felt  so  easy  as  since  he  had  given  up  his  own.  When  he  sat 
down,  a  sly  old  fellow  rose,  and  waving  his  long  brush  with 
a  graceful  air,  said  with  a  sneer,  that  if,  like  the  last  speaker, 
he  had  lost  his  tail,  nothing  further  would  have  been  needed 


THE  COlSrCESSIOJSr   OF   THE  VETO   POWER.  19 

I  have  taken  for  granted  that  Dr.  Adams'  first  plan, 
which  gave  to  the  (xeueral  Assembly  a  veto  in  the  election 
of  Union  directors,  was  the  result  of  a  conference  with 
his  friends  at  Princeton.  So  too,  unquestionably,  was  his 
second  plan,  which  conceded  to  the  General  Assembly  a  veto 
in  the  election  of  Union  professors.  Had  either  of  these 
modes  of  solving  the  question  of  the  theological  semi- 
naries occurred  to  his  own  mind  as  the  best,  he  cer- 
tainly, I  repeat,  would  have  brought  it  before  the  Joint 
Committee  during  the  two  or  more  years  that  Committee 
was  in  existence.  But  I  find  no  evidence  that  it  was  even 
mentioned.  Neither  the  word  "  veto,"  nor  the  thing  itself, 
appears  in  the  report  of  the  Joint  Committee  made  in 
1867,  nor  in  that  of  1868,  nor  in  the  report  of  the  Com- 
mittee of  Conference  in  1869.  The  veto  first  appears  in 
the  plan  presented  to  the  board  of  directors  of  Union 
Seminary  at  the  meeting  on  May  9, 1870.  At  an  adjourned 
meeting  of  the  same  board,  held  on  May  16,  it  reappeared 
as  a  veto  in  the  election  of  professors.  Why  this  abandon- 
ment of  the  scheme  recommended  by  article  ninth  of  the 
report  of  the  Joint  Committee  and  by  the  General  As- 
semblies of  1869  ?  And  why  the  sudden  abandonment  of 
the  method  proposed  to  the  board  of  directors  of  Union 
Seminary  on  May  9th,  and  the  substitution  in  its  place,  on 
May  16th,  of  still  another  method,  namely,  a  veto  in  the 
election  of  professors  alone  ?  The  whole  thing  is  curious 
and  suggestive  in  a  high  degree.  Consider  that  the  ad- 
journed meeting  of  the  board  occurred  on  Monday  after- 
noon, May  16th,  and  that  the  General  Assembly  was  to 
meet  at  Philadelphia  on  the  ensuing  Thursday,  May  19th. 
No  time,  therefore,  was  to  be  lost.    And  no  time  was  lost. 

to  convince  him ;  but  till  such  an  accident  should  happen 
be  should  certainly  vote  in  favor  of  tails. — Ancient  Fables. 


20  UNION   SEMINARY   AND  THE  ASSEMBLY. 

It  was  too  late,  however,  to  give  to  the  pubhc  intimations 
of  the  plan  of  May  16th,  The  Evangelist^  one  of  whose 
editors  at  that  time  M^as  a  prominent  minister  of  the  late 
Old  School,  contained  a  carefully  written  editorial,  out- 
lining the  General  Assembly's  work.  In  the  course  of  this 
article  is  the  following  significant  paragraph  : 

It  is  very  desirable  that  the  several  theological  seminaries 
connected  with  the  Church  be  brought  into  the  same,  or  sim- 
ilar, relations  to  the  Assembly.  The  scheme  proposed  by  the 
Princeton  Review,  April  number,  has  met  with  much  favor. 
Let  it  be  understood  that  the  boards  of  the  respective  semi- 
naries shall  be  allowed  to  fill  the  vacancies  in  their  own  num- 
ber, as  that  scheme  contemplates  ;  and  to  apjDoint  the  incum- 
bents of  the  several  chairs,  subject  in  each  case  to  the  approval 
of  the  next  General  Assembly  ;  and,  it  is  thought,  the  semina- 
ries of  both  branches  will  cheerfully  come  upon  this  platform. 
Princeton  and  Union  are  understood  to  he  prepared  for  it,  and  to 
desire  it. 

Tlie  article  in  the  Princeton  Review  for  April,  18Y0,  was 
probably  written  by  Dr.  Charles  Hodge,  the  founder  and 
then  senior  editor  of  the  Review.  The  "  scheme  "  referred 
to  was  as  follows : 

Let  the  Assembly  confide  the  supervision  and  control  of 
the  seminaries  now  under  its  control  to  theu'  respective  boards 
of  direction,  as  now,  with  simj^ly  these  alterations  :  1.  That 
these  boards  shall  nominate  persons  to  fill  their  own  vacancies 
to  the  Assembly  for  confirmation.  2.  That  they  shall  arrange 
the  professorships,  and  appoint  the  professors,  subject  to  rat- 
ification by  the  Assembly.  This  would  suffice  for  unification, 
so  far  as  seminaries  heretofore  of  the  Old  School  branch  are 
concerned. 

It  seems  to  us  that  it  cannot  be  difficvdt  for  the  seminaries 
of  the  other  branch  to  reach  substantially  the  same  platform. 
Tiiey,  of  course,  can  report  annually  to  the  Assemblies  [Assem- 


THE  CONCESSION   OF  THE    VETO   POWER.  21 

bly ] .  Without  knowing  all  the  details  of  their  present  char- 
ters, we  presume  there  is  no  insuperable  obstacle  to  their 
niaJdng  the  simple  by-law  that  all  their  elections  to  fill  vacan- 
cies in  the  board  or  boards  of  oversight  and  direction,  also  of 
professors,  shall  be  submitted  to  the  Assembly  for  approval 
before  they  are  finally  ratified.  If  the  charters  now  forbid 
such  an  arrangement,  doubtless  alterations  could  easily  be 
obtained  which  would  admit  of  it,  or  something  equivalent, 
—pp.  311,  312. 

At  the  opening,  then,  of  the  first  General  Assembly  of 
the  reunited  Church,  on  May  19, 1870,  the  ease  stood  thus : 
Princeton  objected  to  the  "  recommendation "  of  the  As- 
semblies of  1869  as  unwise  and  could  not  follow  it  without 
imperilling  a  portion  of  her  endowments ;  Union,  warned 
in  time,  refused  to  adopt  the  Princeton  ''  scheme  "  with  re- 
gard to  directors,  but  offered  to  accept  it  in  a  greatly  modi- 
fied form  with  regard  to  professors ;  while  both  had  me- 
morialized the  General  Assembly  in  favor  of  the  latter  ar- 
rangement. This  posture  of  things  was  a  logical,  not  to 
say  necessary,  outcome  of  the  whole  situation.  It  followed 
inevitably  that  Princeton  should  look  forward  with  special 
solicitude  to  the  possible  action  of  the  Assembly  at  Phila- 
delphia, touching  theological  seminaries.  Some  of  her  dear- 
est interests  were,  as  she  believed,  more  or  less  involved  in 
the  issue.  It  would  have  been  strange,  indeed,  had  she  not 
regarded  with  a  certain  misgiving  the  part  which  the  new 
copartners  might  take  in  shaping  that  issue.  Her  tempta- 
tion was  to  overestimate  the  importance  of  a  "  uniform  sys- 
tem "  in  dealing  with  the  theological  seminaries,  and  to  be 
too  solicitous  of  having  them  all  even  as  she  herself  was. 
The  temptation  of  Union,  on  the  other  hand,  was  rather  to 
yield  too  readily  to  the  magnanimous  impulses  of  the  hour, 
and  so  allow  her  cooler  judgment  to  be  overpowered  by  the 
surging  tide  of  reunion  enthusiasm. 


22  UNION   SEMINAKY   AND   THE  ASSEMBLY. 

Pope  Innocent  XII.  wrote  to  the  French  prelates,  who 
had  procured  the  famous  brief  condemning  Fenelon :  "  He 
erred  by  loving  God  too  much," — ^'•Peccamt  excessu  amx/t'is 
divinV^; — so  one  might  say  of  Dr.  Adams,  that  he  erred,  if 
at  all,  in  too  exclusive  devotion  to  the  peace  and  harmony 
of  the  reunited  Church ;  and  the  same  might  be  said  of  most 
of  his  associates  in  the  directory  of  Union  Seminary.  But 
on  one  point  Union  and  Princeton  were  in  perfect  accord. 
Both  regarded  it  as  exceedingly  desirable  that  theological 
professors  should  no  longer  be  elected  by  the  General  As- 
sembly ;  Princeton,  primarily,  on  her  own  account ;  Union, 
on  account  of  Princeton,  as  also  of  the  other  Old  School 
seminaries.  It  is  fair  to  add  that  some  of  the  strongest 
friends  of  Princeton  were,  no  doubt,  influenced  by  another 
reason  for  wishing  to  be  liberated  from  further  subjection 
to  the  General  Assembly  in  the  election  of  its  professors ; 
namely,  distrust  of  the  doctrinal  soundness  of  the  late  Xew 
School  Church.  Dr.  Charles  Hodge  led  a  whole  company 
of  eminent  Old  School  men,  who  to  the  last  protested  and 
fought  against  reunion  largely  on  this  ground ;  they  had  no 
sympathy  with  it.  To  some  of  these,  especially  to  Dr.  Hodge 
himself.  Dr.  Beatty  refers  in  a  striking  letter  printed  in 
The  Evangelist  of  August  6, 1891 :  "  Dr.  Adams  knew  what 
great  diflSculties  and  conflicts  of  mind  I  had  from  the  fact 
that  my  best  friends  were  in  opposition  to  my  views ;  and 
I  made  the  request  of  him  that  after  my  death  he  would 
state  these  things  in  some  article  in  The  Evangelist.''^  Did 
the  simple  fact  of  reunion  at  once  change  their  honest  con- 
victions on  this  subject?  Not  at  all.  And,  therefore,  the 
sudden  accession  of  the  New  School  branch  to  equal  power 
in  the  General  Assembly,  bringing  their  "  loose "  notions 
of  subscription  and  all  their  other  objectionable  views  with 
them,  intensified  the  desire  to  take  the  election  of  Prince- 
ton professors  out  of  that  body. 


THE  CONCESSION   OF  THE  VETO   POWER.  23 

And  it  is  only  right  to  add  further,  that  in  voting,  as  they 
all  did,  in  favor  of  remitting  the  election  of  professors  in  the 
Old  School  seminaries  to  their  several  boards  of  direction, 
the  commissioners  who  belonged  to  the  late  New  School 
branch  were  voting  to  dispossess  themselves  at  once  of  a  power 
in  the  control  of  those  seminaries,  which  reunion  had  fairly 
put  into  their  hands.  It  was  the  proper  thing  for  them  to 
do ;  but  it  was  also  a  handsome  thing  to  do  so  promptly  and 
so  heartily. 

On  the  basis,  then,  of  a  common  sentiment  respecting  the 
election  of  theological  pi'ofessors  both  Union  and  Princeton 
memorialized  the  General  Assembly ;  and  through  their 
joint  influence  the  plan  proposed  by  Union  was  unanimously 
adopted. 

And  just  here  let  me  say  that  in  the  negotiations  and  dis- 
cussion relating  to  the  theological  seminaries  from  1866  to 
1870,  and  in  most  of  the  pending  controversy  about  the 
veto  power  as  well,  one  ever  recurring  fallacy  and  misap- 
prehension is  perceptible ;  viz.,  that  all  the  seminaries  stood 
and  stand  substantially  upon  the  same  ground  and  should 
therefore  be  dealt  with  in  the  same  way.  A  "  uniform  sys- 
tem "  of  ecclesiastical  control  or  supervision,  was  the  thing 
sought  for.  It  was  a  thing  impossible  without  uprooting 
or  suppressing  original  elements  of  the  utmost  value  in  the 
very  being  and  life  of  several  of  the  seminaries.  How  could 
Union  and  Princeton,  for  example,  be  put  upon  a  footing 
of  "  perfect  equality,"  when  one  of  these  institutions  derived 
its  origin  from  the  action  of  a  company  of  good  men  in  the 
cities  of  New  York  and  Brooklyn,  and  possessed  complete 
autonomy ;  while  the  other  was  created  by  the  special  ac- 
tion of  the  General  Assembly  and  was  subject  to  its  ulti- 
mate authority  in  all  things  ?  And  the  differences  between 
the  two  institutions  are  still  radical.  This  point  should  be 
kept  constantly  in  mind.     It  will  not  do,  for  example,  to 


24  UNION   SEMINAKY   AND   THE  ASSEMBLY. 

consider  tlie  legal  relations  of  Princeton  and  of  Union  to 
the  General  Assembly,  as  if  these  relations  were  the  same. 
They  are  almost  wholly  different.  Princeton  derives  its 
origin  from  the  General  Assembly,  which  is  its  patron  and 
the  fountain  of  its  powers.  The  General  Assembly  had 
nothing  to  do  with  the  founding  of  Union,  is  not  its  patron 
nor  the  fountain  of  any  of  its  powers.  The  proprietorship 
and  control  of  the  General  Assembly  over  Princeton,  al- 
though modified  in  one  respect  in  1870,  remain  still  intact 
with  regard  to  other  points  of  vital  importance.  In  the 
election  of  its  directors,  as  well  as  of  its  professors,  Prince- 
ton is  subject  to  the  veto  of  the  General  Assembly,  and  so 
it  is  in  suspending  or  removing  a  professor.  The  Assembly 
has  no  such  power  in  the  case  of  Union.  Por  cause  the 
board  of  directors  of  Union  can  discipline,  suspend,  or  re- 
move a  professor ;  can  at  its  discretion  assign  him  specific 
duties,  and  transfer  him  from  one  chair  to  another,  or  cre- 
ate a  new  chair  and  put  bim  into  it ;  and  the  General  As- 
sembly has  no  voice  whatever  in  the  matter. 

I  have  thus  stated  some  of  the  principal  reasons  and  in- 
fluences that  in  1870  induced  Union  Seminary  to  concede 
to  the  General  Assembly  a  portion  of  its  autonomy. 

(c).  Action  and  jpurjpose  of  the  Board  of  Directors  in 
making  this  concession. 

The  subject  was  first  brought  before  the  board  by  Dr. 
Adams  at  a  meeting  held  on  May  9,  1870.  Among  the 
directors  present  were  Edwin  F.  Hatfield  and  Jonathan  F. 
Stearns,  who  with  Dr.  Adams  had  been  members  of  the 
Joint  Committee  on  Reunion ;  Joseph  S.  Gallagher,  James 
Patriot  Wilson,  Charles  Butler,  Norman  White,  Fisher 
Howe,  William  A.  Booth,  D.  Willis  James,  and  John 
Crosby  Brown.  These  names  speak  for  themselves  and 
need  no  glossary.     They  represent  moral  strength,  sound 


THE   CONCESSION   OF  THE  VETO   POWER.  25 

judgment,  large  and  varied  experience,  world-wide  influ- 
ence, intelligent  piety,  and  all  the  other  qualities  that  go  to 
make  up  solid  weight  of  character.  To  most  of  the  di- 
rectors the  plan  proposed  for  their  adoption  was  wholly  new. 
They  had  never  before  heard  of  it.  But  as  coming  from 
Dr.  Adams,  as  offered  in  the  interest  of  the  unity  and  har- 
mony of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and,  also,  in  response  to 
urgent  persuasions  from  the  old  and  honored  seminary  at 
Princeton,  it  won  their  consent,  if  not  their  entire  approval. 
So  far  as  its  weak  points  were  concerned,  it  took  them  at  a 
serious  disadvantage.  They  had  no  time  for  reflection. 
And  so,  while  there  was  considerable  discussion,  with 
a  single  notable  exception  none  opposed  the  scheme. 
Several  of  the  professors  were  present,  but  they  raised 
no  objection.  The  record  would  doubtless  be  differ- 
ent had  Henry  B.  Smith  been  among  them.  He  was  a 
theologian  of  extraordinary  sagacity,  always  looking  be- 
fore and  after,  for  he  had  the  instincts  of  a  born  statesman. 
And  his  devotion  to  Union  Seminary  was  a  ruling  passion. 
The  plan  of  putting  the  institution  under  ecclesiastical 
control  never  pleased  him.  He  considered  the  generous 
and  self-governing  liberty,  which  was  its  birthright,  a  bless- 
ing too  great  to  be  parted  with  at  any  price.  He  distrusted 
also  a  certain  tendency  and  temper,  or,  rather,  as  he  viewed 
it,  distemper,  which  again  and  again  in  the  last  century 
and  in  our  own  had  troubled  the  peace  and  hampered  the 
free  development  of  American  Presbyterianism.  In  1837, 
at  the  age  of  twenty-one,  he  had  been  a  watchful  eye- 
witness of  the  turbulent  scenes  at  Philadelphia,  when  the 
four  synods  were  cut  off  and  the  great  disruption  was  in- 
augurated. From  that  time  he  was  a  keen  observer  of  all 
that  went  on  in  the  two  branches  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church ;  and  before  coming  to  New  York,  thirteen  years 
later,  he  had  formed  opinions  on  the  subject  which  re- 


26  UNION   SEMINARY   AND   THE  ASSEMBLY. 

mained  essentially  unchanged  to  the  day  of  his  death.  In 
a  letter  to  me,  dated  Amherst,  September  17,  1850,  he 
wrote : 

I  go  to  New  York  in  full  view  of  the  uncertainties  and 

difficulties  of  the  position It  [the  Seminary]  stands 

somewhere  between  Andover  and  Princeton,  just  as  New 
School  Presb\i.erianism  stands  between  Congregationalism 
and  the  consistent  domineering  Presb;^i:erianism,  and  will  be 
pressed  on  all  sides.  Whether  it  is  to  be  resolved  into  these 
two,  or  to  be  consolidated  on  its   own  ground,  is   still   a 

problem I  am  going  to  New  York  to  work, — to  work^ 

I  trust,  for  my  Master. 

This  "  consistent  domineering  "  element,  so  far  as  it  pre- 
vailed in  Presbyterianism,  whether  in  the  theological  or 
the  ecclesiastical  sphere,  he  regarded  with  strong  dislike. 
Had  he  been  present,  therefore,  at  the  meeting  of  the 
board  on  May  9,  1870,  I  believe  he  would  have  stood  just 
where  D.  "Willis  James  so  firmly  stood  with  respect  to  the 
plan  of  conceding  to  the  General  Assembly  so  vital  a 
part  of  the  Seminary's  chartered  rights  and  autonomy  as 
the  last  decisive  word  in  the  election  of  its  own  professors. 
And  Henry  B,  Smith  was,  probably,  the  only  man  whose 
voice  at  that  time  on  any  matter  touching  the  theological 
seminaries  would  have  been  equally  potential  with  that  of 
William  Adams.  But,  unfortunately,  early  in  the  previous 
year,  just  as  reunion  was  about  to  triumph.  Professor  Smith, 
utterly  broken  do^vn  in  the  service  of  Union  Seminary  and 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  had  fled  for  his  life  beyond 
the  sea,  and  he  was  still  abroad. 

I  have  intimated  that  a  single  director  only — D.  Willis 
James — raised  his  voice  against  the  plan  proposed  by  Dr. 
Adams.  Mr.  James  is  a  grandson  of  Anson  G.  Phelps, 
and  thus  is  identified  with  the  history  of  the  Seminary  by 


THE   CONCESSION   OF   THE   VETO   POWER.  27 

his  close  kinship  to  three  generations  of  its  benefactors,  as 
well  as  by  his  own  munificent  gifts.  At  the  memorable 
meeting  of  the  board  of  directors  of  Union  Seminary, 
held  on  June  5,  1891,  Mr.  James  made  the  following 
highly  important  statement : 

I  feel  it  due  to  the  board  of  directors  to  give  to  them  a 
statement  of  what  occurred  at  the  meeting  of  the  directors 
held  on  the  9th  of  May,  1870,  when  the  matter  of  the  con- 
nection of  the  Seminary  with  the  General  Assembly  of  the 
Presbyterian  Chm-ch  was  first  considered.  That  meeting, 
from  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  and  all  that  occurred 
there  at  that  time,  is  most  clearly  and  indelibly  impressed 
upon  my  memory. 

Dr.  Adams  proposed  that  the  Union  Theological  Seminary 
should  give  to  the  General  Assembly  a  veto  power  over  the 
appointment  of  the  directors  of  the  Seminary,  assigning  as 
the  reason,  in  much  detail,  that  it  would  be  a  great  aid  to 
the  other  seminaries  of  the  Church,  whose  professors  were 
appointed  by  the  action  of  the  General  Assembly  and  not  by 
the  board  of  directors.  He  also  stated  that  experience  had 
shown  that  the  professors  thus  appointed  by  the  General 
Assembly  were  frequently  not  such  as  proved  to  be  the  best 
men  for  the  several  positions. 

I  strenuously  objected  to  giving  the  veto  power  in  the 
appointment  of  the  directors  to  the  General  Assembly  on  the 
gi'ound  that  it  was  practically  placing  the  control  of  the 
property  and  all  the  interests  of  the  Union  Theological  Sem- 
inary in  the  hands  of  the  General  Assembly,  and  that  such 
action  was  fraught  with  great  danger. 

A  general  discussion  occurred,  participated  in  by  most  of 
the  du'ectors,  and  I  spoke  a  second  time  on  the  subject,  call- 
ing attention  most  earnestly  to  the  great  danger,  as  it  seemed 
to  me,  of  any  such  action  by  which  the  large  property  of  the 
Seminary,  and  all  its  interests,  would  be  practically  turned 
over  to  the  control  of  the  General  Assembly. 


28  UNION   SEMINAEY   AND   THE  ASSEMBLY. 

But  when  it  seemed  evident  that  a  vote  would  be  taken 
and  that  the  resolution  would  be  passed  by  the  board  of  di- 
rectors, I  arose  for  the  third  time,  feeling  very  strongly  the 
importance  of  the  matter  under  consideration,  and  said,  in 
substance,  that  I  should  request,  when  the  vote  was  taken, 
that  it  should  be  by  ayes  and  nays,  so  that  my  vote  could  be 
recorded  in  the  negative,  and  that  I  should  also  request  that 
my  most  earnest  and  solemn  protest  be  entered  in  full  in  the 
minutes,  to  the  end  that  when  the  disaster  came,  as  it  cer- 
tainly would  from  this  action — perhaps  after  ah.  those  who 
were  taking  part  in  the  discussion  at  that  time  had  passed 
away — the  Seminary  could  then  have  the  benefit  of  this 
protest  and  whatever  legal  advantages  might  come  from  such 
protest. 

I  said  that  I  did  not  desire  to  make  factious  opposition, 
but  that  I  felt  the  interests  of  the  Seminary  were  being 
jeopardized  and  that  a  great  injury  was  being  done  to  its 
future. 

When  I  sat  down  Dr.  Prentiss  rose  and  said,  substan- 
tiaUy,  that  he  would  surprise  the  mover  of  the  resolution 
by  the  action  he  was  about  to  take,  but  that  he  had  become 
impressed  with  the  fact  that  it  was  wise  to  take  further  time 
for  consideration,  and  would  move  a  postponement  of  the 
matter  for  that  purpose.  This  motion  led  to  the  postpone- 
ment of  the  vote. 

Prior  to  the  adjourned  meeting  of  May  16,  1870, 1  had 
an  interview  with  Dr.  Adams  and  expressed  to  him  my  sin- 
cere regret  that  I  had  been  compelled  to  differ  with  him  and 
other  members  of  the  board,  but  he  then  tendered  to  me  his 
thanks  for  my  having  taken  the  course  I  did,  and  said  he  felt 
that  it  was  wiser  not  to  have  passed  the  resolution  he  first 
proposed. 

He  then  suggested,  in  the  interest  of  the  other  semi- 
naries then  controlled  by  the  General  Assembly,  the  motion 
which  was  presented  and  adopted  on  the  16th  of  May,  1870, 
viz.  :  That  the  veto  power  in  the  appointment  of  the  profes- 


THE  CONCESSION   OF  THE   VETO   POWEE.  29 

sors  should  be  given  to  the  General  Assembly,  and  this  solely 
in  the  interest  of  other  seminai'ies  which  would  be  benefited 
by  this  action  of  the  Union  Theological  Seminary. 

I  expressed  to  him  then  the  view  that  I  held,  that  even 
this  action,  though  much  better  than  placing  the  control  of 
the  property  in  the  hands  of  the  General  Assembly,  was  stiU 
a  very  serious  mistake,  and  calculated  to  produce  great  and 
unfortunate  mischief. 

I  said,  however,  that  if  he  and  other  directors  felt  that 
this  was  the  wisest  course,  and  as  they  had  yielded  the  mat- 
ter of  the  veto  power  over  the  appointment  of  directors, 
while  I  would  not  vote  in  favor  of  the  resolution,  I  would  not 
go  on  record  against  it ;  and,  as  a  result,  the  resolution  was 
passed  on  the  16th  of  May,  1870,  giving  to  the  General 
Assembly  only  a  veto  over  the  appointment  of  professors  and 
nothing  more. 

{d).  Did  the  Boa/rd  of  Directors  of  Union  Seminary  sup- 
pose that  in  their  action  on  May  16,  1870,  they  were 
offering  to  enter  into  a  legal  compact  with  the  General 
Assembly  ? 

1.  It  has  been  assumed  by  many,  and  strenuously  argued 
by  others,  that  this  was  their  understanding  of  the  matter ; 
at  all  events,  that  such  was  the  real  quality  and  effect  of 
their  action.  And  on  the  ground  of  its  possessing  this 
character,  we  have  been  treated  to  somewhat  elaborate 
definitions  and  expositions  of  the  nature  and  binding  force 
of  a  contract,  the  extent  and  limitations  of  ultra  vires,  and 
I  know  not  how  many  other  lessons  in  legal  lore.  And  yet, 
according  to  the  best  of  my  own  recollection,  as  a  member 
of  the  board,  and  of  my  belief  concerning  all  the  other 
members  present,  not  a  single  director  supposed  the  board 
was  entering  into  any  such  legal  compact.  Three  directors 
who  were  present  on  May  9th,  and  also  on  May  ]  6th,  had 
been  members  of  the  Joint  Committee  on  Reunion,  as  I 


30  TNION   SEMINARY   AND   THE  ASSEMBLY. 

have  said  before ;  one  of  them,  Jonathan  F.  Steams,  was 
also  a  member  of  the  Joint  Committee  of  Conference,  which 
reported  the  final  basis  and  plan  of  union  to  the  two  Assem- 
blies in  1869.  He  aided  in  preparing  that  important  re- 
port, voted  for  it,  signed  it,  and  gave  it  his  hearty  approval. 
And  it  was  in  this  report,  made  and  explained  to  the  Old 
School  Assembly  in  the  Brick  Church  by  Dr.  Musgrave, 
that  those  emphatic  sentences  relating  to  the  articles  on 
seminaries,  boards,  and  the  like  occur:  "We  will  not  con- 
sent to  make  these  articles  a  covenant ;  we  won't  adopt 
them  as  a  legal  compact  binding  upon  the  future."  Dr. 
Stearns  was  the  most  trusted  counsellor  of  Henry  B. 
Smith,  and  not  unlike  him  in  sagacity  and  forethought,  as 
also  in  devotion  to  Union  Seminary  and  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  To  Dr.  Stearns  more,  in  my  opinion,  than  to  any 
other  man  did  Union  Seminary  owe  the  coming  of  Henry 
B.  Smith  to  New  Yorkx  The  New  School  branch  of  the 
Church  especially  never  knew  the  full  extent  of  her  indebt- 
edness  to  him,  for  he  was  as  modest  as  he  was  wise,  fear- 
less, and  public-spirited.  Is  it  likely  that  such  a  man  would 
have  sat  quietly  and  given  his  vote  for  a  settlement  of  the 
question  of  the  theological  seminaries  in  a  way,  on  a  princi- 
ple, and  with  an  understanding  contradicting  so  utterly  the 
report  which  a  few  months  before  he  had  joined  in  fram- 
ing and  urging  upon  the  acceptance  of  the  General  Assem- 
blies?    The  thing  is  inconceivable. 

But  I  have  not  stated  this  aspect  of  the  case  in  its  full 
strength.  Dr.  Adams  himself  was  a  member  of  the  Joint 
Committee  of  Conference,  and  signed  the  report  as  its 
chairman.  He  also  presented  the  report  to  the  New  School 
Assembly  in  the  Church  of  the  Covenant,  as  Dr.  Musgrave 
did  at  the  same  time  to  the  Old  School  Assembly  in  the 
Brick  Church.  He  explained  it  in  a  careful  speech,  calling 
attention  to  the  point  that  the  articles  of  agreement  or  con- 


THE   CONCESSION   OF  THE   VETO   POWER.  31 

current  declarations  were  not  a  compact  or  contract,  but 
recommendations  only  as  to  what  might  be  suitable  and  ex- 
pedient. Is  it  at  all  probable,  is  it  really  conceivable,  that 
such  a  man  as  Dr.  Adams,  only  a  few  months  later,  would 
have  proposed  to  the  board  of  directors  of  Union  Semi- 
nary a  plan  touching  the  whole  future  of  that  institution, 
which  involved  the  very  thing  so  distinctly  repudiated  by 
the  unanimous  vote  of  the  Joint  Committee  of  Conference  ? 
and  repudiated,  too,  by  both  Assemblies  ? 

The  plan  of  1870  was  an  expression  of  Christian  confi- 
dence and  good-will  on  the  part  of  the  directors  of  Union 
Seminary.  In  offering  to  give  up  so  much  of  their  autono- 
my as  was  involved  in  conceding  to  the  General  Assembly 
a  veto  in  the  election  of  its  professors,  they  were  not  think- 
ing of  a  legal  compact,  whereby  the  Seminary  would  gain 
certain  positive  advantages  in  return ;  they  were  thinking 
simply  of  what  seemed  to  them,  on  the  whole,  best  fitted  to 
promote  the  harmony  and  prosperity  of  the  united  Church, 
and  the  true  interests  of  all  the  other  theological  seminaries. 
Their  offer  was  in  its  very  essence,  as  the  General  Assem- 
bly a  few  days  after  characterized  it,  an  act  of  high  "  gen- 
erosity," or  as  Dr.  Musgrave  expressed  it,  in  1871,  an  act 
of  "  courtesy."  But  generosity  and  courtesy  belong  to  a 
line  of  thought  and  action  totally  distinct  from  that  of  a 
legal  compact  with  its  definite  obligations  and  advantages. 
Had  the  discussion  in  the  board  of  directors  of  Union 
Seminary  moved  along  the  line  of  such  a  compact,  nothing 
is  more  certain  than  that  the  plan  of  agreement  would  have 
failed  utterly. 

No  doubt  there  is  an  element  of  agreement  in  a  legal 
compact.  Every  such  compact  is  an  agreement ;  but  there 
are  many  sorts  of  agreement  which  are  only  differing 
forms  of  good  understanding,  friendly  arrangements,  acts 
of  generosity  or  courtesy,  which  lose  their  most  essential 


32  UNION   SEMINARY   AND   THE   ASSEMBLY. 

virtue  and  all  tlieir  beauty  the  moment  you  invest  them 
with  the  rigidity  and  binding  force  of  a  legal  contract.  The 
discussion  on  reunion,  and  especially  the  speech  of  Dr. 
Musgrave  before  the  Old  School  Assembly — heard,  proba- 
bly, by  most  of  the  Union  directors — had  made  the  whole 
Presbyterian  Church  familiar  with  this  distinction.  "  We 
will  not  consent,"  said  Dr.  Musgrave,  referring  to  the 
recommendations  about  theological  seminaries,  boards,  etc., 
"we  will  not  consent  to  make  these  articles  a  covenant. 
We  wotiH  adopt  them  as  a  legal  comjyact,  binding  upon  the 
futv/re  j  yet  we  are  acting  in  good  faith  and  as  honorable 
men,  and  we  say  to  you  that  we  will  not  change  them  at 
any  future  time  without  obviously  good  and  sujicieni 
reasons. ^^  Exactly  so  would  the  directors  of  Union  Semi- 
nary have  expressed  themselves  with  regard  to  their  gener- 
ous arrangement  with  the  General  Assembly.  Such  words 
as  "  compact,"  "  contract,"  "  covenant,"  are  carefully  avoid- 
ed in  the  memorial  of  Union  Seminary  and  in  the  action 
of  the  General  Assembly  thereupon.  "  Plan,"  "  rule," 
"  agreement,"  "  method,"  or  the  like,  are  the  terms  used. 
It  was  intended,  just  as  the  ninth  article  in  the  report  of 
the  Joint  Committee  was  intended,  "  as  a  measure  for  the 
maintenance  of  confidence  and  harmony,  and  not  as  indi- 
cating the  best  method  for  all  future  time"  {Moor^s 
Digest,  p.  384). 

All  that  the  article  in  the  Princeton  Review  for  April, 
1870,  written  by  Dr.  Charles  Hodge,  or  with  his  approval, 
ventured  to  suggest  to  the  New  School  branch  was  "  mak- 
ing the  simple  by-law  that  all  the  elections  to  fill  vacancies 
in  the  board  or  boards  of  oversight  and  direction,  also  of 
professors,  shall  be  submitted  to  the  Assembly  for  approval 
before  they  are  finally  ratified."  "Who  ever  heard  of  a 
"  simple  by-law  "  that  could  not  be  suspended,  changed,  or 
repealed  by  the  power  that  made  it  ?    The  difference  be- 


THE   CONCESSION   OF   THE   VETO   POWER.  33 

tween  the  concessions  asked,  if  not  claimed,  of  the  Kew 
School  by  the  Old  School  opponents  of  the  first  plan  of  re- 
union, as  reported  by  the  Joint  Committee  in  1867,  and 
the  concessions  hoped  for  just  before  the  meeting  of  the 
Assembly  of  1870,  as  stated  in  the  above  article  of  the 
Princeton  Review^  is  very  strikmg.  It  is  the  difference 
between  a  maximum  and  a  minimum.  Perhaps  it  cannot 
be  better  illustrated  than  by  some  extracts  from  a  letter  of 
Professor  A.  A.  Hodge,  of  the  Allegheny  Seminary,  to  Dr. 
Henry  B.  Smith,  vp-ritten  in  December,  1867.  The  italics 
are  his  own : 

Although  I  am  in  every  sense  unknown  to  you,  my  knowl- 
edge of  and  indebtedness  to  you  through  your  writings,  and 
especially  our  commimity  of  interest  in  the  subject  of  this 
letter,  emboldens  me  to  intrude  it  upon  you,  and  to  urge 
your  deliberate  attention  to  it. 

Undoubtedly  one  of  the  chief  causes  of  uneasiness  on  the 
part  of  the  Old  School,  in  view  of  reunion  upon  the  terms 
proposed  by  the  Joint  Committee,  is  the  inequality  between 
the  positions  of  the  two  parties  in  respect  to  seminaries. 
This  is  e^'ident  from  the  fact  that  serious  objection  is  made 
to  the  terms  proposed  in  respect  to  this  interest  by  a  far 
larger  number  of  presbyteries  fhan  is  necessary  to  defeat  the 
whole  matter Now,  although  I  write  without  consul- 
tation with  or  the  knowledge  of  a  single  person,  I  feel  certain 
that  a  compromise  to  the  following  effect  would  be  highly 
gratifying  to  the  great  majority  of  those  most  nearly  inter- 
ested in  seminaries  on  our  side,  and  further,  that  if  proposed 
from  your  side  it  would  be  almost  certainly  accepted  by  our 
General  Assembly  as  a  condition  of  union. 

Suppose  then  the  matter  be  adjusted  on  the  following 
principles  : 

1.  All  the  seminaries  of  both  parties  to  be,  as  a  condition 
of  union,  brought  in  on  the  same  basis,  so  that  there  may  be 
perfect  equality. 


34  UNION   SEMINARY   AND   THE   ASSEMBLY. 

2.  That  you  on  your  side  admit  the  principle  of  direct 
ecclesiastical  control,  and  put  your  seminaries  each  under 
the  care  of  one  or  more  contiguous  synods.  The  synods  to 
elect  the  boards  of  directors,  the  boards  of  directors  to  elect 
the  professors.  The  General  Assembly,  for  the  sake  of  pre- 
serving uniformity  of  doctrine  in  the  Church,  to  possess  the 
right  of  peremptory  veto  in  the  case  of  the  election  of  a  pro- 
fessor. 

3.  That  we  on  our  side  yield  the  principle  of  the  im- 
mediate control  of  the  seminaries  by  the  General  Assembly, 
and  put  each  of  our  seminaries  under  one  or  more  sjTiods  in 
the  manner  specified  above. 

Such  a  plan  might  have  some  legitimate  objections.  It 
would  certainly  meet  with  decided  opposition  from  some  of 
the  more  distant  portions  of  our  branch,  which  would  there- 
by be  dispossessed  of  powers  previously  enjoyed.  It  would 
be  obviously  inadvisable  for  such  a  proposition  to  be  publicly 
offered  by  any  of  our  professors.     Therefore,  I  shall  do  no 

more  than  make  this  suggestion  to  you If  you  agree 

with  me  as  to  the  plan,  and  are  willing  to  present  it  to  the 
representatives  of  your  branch  in  the  Joint  Committee,  I  have 
much  hope  that  it  will  prevail. 

Professor  Smith,  regarding  the  scheme  so  strongly  urged 
in  this  interesting  letter  as  wholly  impracticable,  felt  un- 
willing to  recommend  it  to  the  New  School  representatives 
of  the  Joint  Committee. 

{e).  Scope  and  limitations  of  the  veto  in  the  election  of  its 
Professors  offered  to  the  General  Assembly  hy  the 
Directors  of  Union  Seminary  in  1870. 

Passing  from  the  question  of  the  nature  of  this  offer,  let 
us  consider  its  extent  and  limitations.  The  language  used 
is  very  exact  and  carefully  chosen.  My  impression  is,  that 
it  differs  materially  from  that  used  in  the  plan  presented  to 
the  board  on  May  9th.     Before  the  meeting  on  May  16th 


LIMITATIONS   OF   THE   VETO   POWEB  35 

legal  counsel  had  probably  been  taken.  In  nearly  all,  if 
not  in  all,  the  proposals  and  articles  on  the  subject,  prior  to 
the  meeting  at  Philadelphia,  positive  action  by  the  General 
Assembly  was  contemplated  as  requisite  to  a  complete  elec- 
tion ;  in  other  words,  every  election  or  appointment,  in 
order  to  be  complete,  must  be  directly  approved,  or  else 
disapproved,  by  the  General  Assembly.  This  would  be  in 
accordance  with  the  usual  practice  in  the  political  sphere. 
Ordinarily  the  veto  power  goes  along  with  the  power  of 
approval  and  confirmation.  It  is  so  with  the  Presidential 
veto.  It  is  so  generally  with  the  veto  power  of  governors 
and  mayors.  But  it  was  not  so  here ;  and  as  a  consequence, 
even  the  General  Assembly  itself,  as  we  shall  see,  required 
twenty  years  fairly  to  learn  the  lesson  of  the  extent  of  its 
power  in  the  case.  All  that  the  Assembly  can  rightfully 
do,  under  the  agreement  of  18Y0,  is  either  to  disapprove  or 
to  do  nothing.  This  shows  how  sagaciously  the  whole 
matter  was  finally  arranged.  The  plan  bears  on  its  very 
face  marks  of  the  utmost  caution  and  forethought.  Had  it 
included  the  power  of  approval,  as  well  as  of  disapproval, 
every  election  reported  between  1870  and  1891  would  then 
have  come  before  the  Assembly  for  confirmation,  and 
might  have  led  to  any  amount  of  more  or  less  excited 
discussion  and  conflict  of  opinion.  An  approval,  if  strenu- 
ously opposed  by  only  a  small  minority,  would  be  likely  to 
prejudice  even  a  good  appointment;  while  an  approval, 
carried  by  a  bare  majority,  could  hardly  fail  to  stir  up  bad 
feeling  among  the  friends  of  the  candidate,  if  not  in  his 
own  breast.  Whatever  evils  are  incident  to  the  election  of 
theological  teachers  by  the  General  Assembly,  the  plan  of 
1870  certainly  reduces  them  to  a  minimum,  as  compared 
with  a  plan  which  should  embrace  the  power  of  ratifying, 
as  well  as  of  vetoing,  every  appointment.  It  is  likely  that 
between  May  9th  and  May  16th  Dr.  Adams  not  only  took 


36  UNIOlSr   SEMIlSrARY    AND   THE  ASSEMBLY. 

legal  counsel,  but  that  he  also  sought  the  counsel  of  those 
two  wise  men  and  old  friends,  Dr.  Stearns  and  Dr.  Hat- 
field, with  whom  for  nearly  three  years  he  had  been  in  the 
habit  of  conferring  on  this  very  question  of  the  theological 
seminaries  in  the  Joint  Committee  on  Reunion,  or  in  the 
ISTew  School  branch  of  it.  That  the  General  Assembly, 
under  the  rule  of  1870,  has  no  power  of  approval  is  ad- 
mitted now  on  all  hands. 

But  there  is  another  point,  concerning  which  there  has 
been  and  is  still  direct  conflict  of  opinion;  the  point, 
namely,  whether  the  transfer  of  a  member  of  the  faculty 
from  one  chair  to  another  is  an  election  in  the  same  sense 
as  an  original  appointment,  and  therefore  subject  to  the 
Assembly's  veto.  The  General  Assembly  at  Detroit  as- 
sumed that  a  transfer  does  not  differ  from  an  original  elec- 
tion, and  by  a  large  majority  voted  to  disapprove  the 
transfer  of  Dr.  Briggs  from  the  chair  of  Hebrew  and  cog- 
nate languages  to  the  new  chair  of  Biblical  Theology.  The 
position  of  the  board  of  directors,  on  the  other  hand,  was 
and  is  that  the  original  election  of  Dr.  Briggs,  not  having 
been  disapproved  by  the  General  Assembly,  fixed  his 
status,  once  for  all,  as  a  member  of  the  teaching  faculty 
of  Union  Seminary ;  and  that  his  transfer  to  the  chair  of 
Biblical  Theology  could  not  therefore  unsettle,  suspend,  or 
in  any  wise  change  that  status ;  it  was  simply  an  assign- 
ment of  new  and  other  duties,  belonged  solely  to  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  board,  and  lay  wholly  beyond  the  control 
or  supervision  of  the  General  Assembly. 

This  view  is  enforced  by  several  considerations:  1.  It 
harmonizes  with  the  exclusion  from  the  plan,  adopted  by 
the  directors  on  May  16th,  of  all  direct  power  of  approval. 
That  exclusion  indicates  plainly  the  animus  and  latent,  if 
not  the  deliberate,  purpose  of  the  board.  I  say  "  latent, 
if  not  deliberate,  purpose,"  because  no  evidence  exists  that 


LIMITATIONS   OF  THE   VETO   POWER.  37 

in  using  the  terms  " election "  and  "appointment"  there 
was  any  thought  or  suspicion  in  the  mind  of  a  single 
director  present  that  the  agreement  included  also  a  transfer 
from  one  chair  to  another.  Not  a  word  was  lisped  on  this 
point.*  Had  it  been  raised  then  and  there ;  had  Dr. 
Adams,  in  explaining  his  revised  plan,  said  to  the  board : 
"  I  feel  bound  to  tell  jou  frankly  that  this  plan,  faithfully 
carried  out,  will  of  necessity  render  the  internal  administra- 
tion and  housekeeping  of  Union  Seminary,  touching  some 
of  its  most  vital  interests,  subject  to  the  ultimate  control  of 
the  General  Assembly,"  Mr.  James'  protest  of  May  9th 
would  have  been  echoed  throughout  the  room.  The  plan 
would  have  withered  on  the  spot.  Or,  to  state  the  case  in 
another  way,  had  the  question  been  put  to  Dr.  Adams : 
"Do  you  mean  to  include  in  the  terras  'election'  and 
'appointment'  a  transfer  also,  such  as  we  often  make 
from  one  chair  to  another  ?  In  our  relations  to  the  General 
Assembly  will  the  original  status  of  one  of  our  professors 
be  lost  by  calling  him  to  new  duties  in  the  institution,  until 
it  has  been  recovered  by  subjecting  him  again  to  the  veto 
of  the  General  Assembly?"  the  prompt  answer,  I  am 
quite  sure,  would  have  been :  "  Most  certainly  not ;  that 

*  Among  the  members  of  the  faculty  present  was  Dr.  Philip 
Schafif.  In  a  letter  to  me,  Dr.  Schaff,  referring  to  Dr.  Adams' 
proposal  "  as  a  generous  peace-oflfering  on  the  altar  of  the 
reunion  of  Old  and  New  School,"  adds  : 

My  impression  was  that  Dr.  Adams  had  previously  conferred  with 
Dr.  Charles  Hodge,  who  in  behalf  of  Princeton  was  anxious  to  get 
freedom  from  the  control  of  the  Assembly  in  the  appointment  of  pro- 
fessors.   Our  loss  was  Princeton's  gain. 

The  distinction  between  the  appointment  of  a  new  professor  and 
the  transfer  of  an  old  one  to  a  new  department  was  not  mentioned, 
and  probably  not  even  thought  of,  at  that  time.  I  myself  was  trans- 
ferred three  times — to  the  Hebrew,  to  the  Greek,  and  to  Church  His- 
tory— and  nothing  was  said  about  a  veto. 


38  UNION   SEMINAEY   AND  THE  ASSEMBLY. 

goes  without  saying.  We  are  proposing  to  enter,  not  into 
a  legal  compact,  but  into  a  friendly  and  courteous  arrano-e- 
ment  by  which  the  General  Assembly  shall  have  a  voice  in 
respect  to  the  qualifications  of  every  man  who  is  to  be  a 
theological  teacher  in  our  Seminary.  But  once  admitted, 
unforbidden,  into  our  faculty,  the  Assembly  will  have 
nothing  f  m-ther  to  do  with  him  except  indirectly,  of  course, 
as  a  Presbyterian  minister.  We  are  not  trying  to  drive  a 
bargain,  but  to  do  what  seems  to  us  a  fair  and  wise,  not  to 
say  very  generous,  thing  in  the  interest  of  the  peace  and 
prosperity  of  the  reunited  Church." 

2.  But  even  assuming,  for  an  instant,  that  the  plan  of 
1870  was  a  legal  compact,  binding  as  such  upon  the  future, 
it  should  yet  be  interpreted  in  strictest  accordance  with  its 
specific  design.  Whatever  power  it  concedes  is  a  power  of 
trust;  and  if  that  power  can  be  rightly  delegated  at  all, 
which  I  will  not  here  discuss,  it  should  certainly  be  dele- 
gated in  such  manner  and  with  such  careful  limitations  as 
to  preclude  all  suspicion  of  tampering  or  dealing  lightly 
with  the  trust.  We  may,  indeed,  distinguish  between  the 
trustee  and  the  director,  but  we  must  not  divide  them. 
The  chartered  rights  and  duties  of  the  board  cross  and  run 
into  each  other.  The  office  of  every  director  of  Union 
Seminary  is  a  sacred  trust ;  a  trust  not  merely  for  property, 
but  for  something  infinitely  more  precious  and  enduring 
—the  moral  and  spiritual  treasures  of  the  institution ;  its 
grand  design  as  a  school  of  divinity ;  the  good  deeds  and 
worth  of  its  excellent  founders ;  the  fame  of  its  learned, 
wise,  and  godly  teachers ;  the  glorious  achievements  of  its 
alumni  in  the  service  of  their  Master ;  the  memories  of  its 
munificent  friends  and  benefactors ;  in  a  word,  its  invalu- 
able history  and  traditions.  Hence  every  director,  before 
entering  upon  his  duties,  is  required  to  take  this  solemn 
pledge : 


LIMITATIONS   OF  THE  VETO   POWER.  39 

Approving  of  the  plan  and  constitution  of  the  Union 
Theological  Seminary  in  the  city  of  New  York,  and  of  the 
Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  and  the  Presbyterian  form 
of  church  government,  I  do  solemnly  promise  to  maintain  the 
same  so  long  as  I  shall  continue  to  be  a  member  of  the 
board  of  directors. 

3.  And  then  it  seems  to  me  a  strong  incidental  con- 
firmation of  the  view  taken  by  the  directors  of  Union 
Seminary  with  regard  to  the  scope  of  the  agreement  of 
1870,  that  the  oflScial  minutes  of  the  board  take  for 
granted  the  correctness  of  that  view.  The  board  has 
again  and  again  assigned  its  professors  to  new  duties  and 
to  new  chairs.  Three  times  it  transferred  Dr.  Schaff  from 
one  chair  to  another.  Last  winter  it  created  a  new  chair, 
and  selected  Dr.  Briggs  to  fill  it,  transferring  Dr.  Brown  at 
the  same  time  to  the  chair  vacated  by  Dr.  Briggs.  The 
record  of  these  and  similar  changes  on  the  minutes  of  the 
board  varies  in  language.  The  terms  "  elected,"  "  chosen," 
"appointed,"  "transferred,"  have  been  used  more  or  less 
indiscriminately ;  and  that  for  the  simple  reason  that  in  the 
mind  of  the  board  there  was  no  thought  of  any  question 
touching  its  own  proper  authority  in  each  case.  Transfer 
is  evidently  the  fitting  term,  expressing  both  the  fact  and 
the  power ;  and  this  is  the  word  which  has  of  late  years  been 
chiefly  employed  in  the  minutes  of  the  executive  commit- 
tee and  of  the  board  of  directors  of  Union  Seminary.  If 
all  "  appointments  "  in  the  literal  sense  are  subject  to  the 
veto  of  the  General  Assembly,  temporary  assignments  of 
duty  would  have  to  be  reported  to  the  Assembly;  for 
nothing  is  more  common  than  to  "  appoint "  a  professor  to 
such  special  duties. 

4.  There  is  still  another  consideration  which  sustains  the 
view  that  a  transfer  is  wholly  different  from  an  original 
election ;  the  fact,  namely,  that  the  strict  rules  of  j^ocedure 


40  UNION   SEMINARY   AND   THE  ASSEMBLY. 

in  the  origiiial  election  have  not  heen  observed  in  the  case 
of  a  mere  transfer.  The  disregard  of  these  rules  has  in 
repeated  instances  been  so  positive  and  varied  as  to  in- 
validate the  whole  action  of  the  board,  if  a  transfer  is  the 
same  thing  as  an  original  appointment.  Alike  in  the  open 
disregard  of  some  of  these  rules  and  in  inducting  at  once 
into  the  new  or  vacant  chair  without  any  respect  to  the 
General  Assembly — as,  for  example,  in  the  case  of  Dr. 
Briggs — we  have  a  clear  demonstration  that  in  the  view  of  the 
board  of  directors  of  Union  Seminary  a  transfer  has  always 
been  regarded  as  simply  an  assignment  of  duties,  and  sub- 
ject, therefore,  neither  to  the  veto  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly nor  to  a  strict  observance  of  the  usual  forms  prescribed 
by  law  and  custom  in  first  calling  a  man  to  the  service  of 
the  Seminary. 

In  the  discussion  of  the  extent  of  the  Assembly's  veto 
power  the  singular  point  has  been  made  that  we  ought  to 
distinguish  between  the  different  chairs  and  the  subject- 
matter  taught  in  them.  A  Jew,  for  example — so  I  have 
heard  it  argued  by  at  least  two  eminent  directors  in  a  lead- 
ing Presbyterian  seminary — a  Jew  might  make  an  excel- 
lent professor  of  Hebrew ;  but  suppose,  hiding  behind  the 
technicality  of  a  transfer,  you  should  put  him  into  the  chair 
of  Systematic  Theology,  would  that  not  be  a  case  for  the 
intervention  of  the  General  Assembly's  veto  power?  I 
reply,  No ;  not  if  the  Assembly  had  failed  to  disapprove 
of  his  taking  the  chair  of  Hebrew.  I  freely  admit  that 
there  are  devout,  God-fearing  Jews,  abundantly  qualified 
to  be  professors  of  Hebrew  in  any  theological  seminary. 
Isaac  Nordheimer,  my  own  beloved  teacher,  was  such  a 
man  ;  but  the  best  and  most  learned  Jew  in  the  world  could 
not  get  into  the  chair  of  Hebrew  in  Union  Seminary,  to 
say  nothing  of  his  transfer  to  the  chair  of  Systematic  The- 
ology, for  how  could  a  Jew  sincerely  adopt  the   West- 


THE   OFFER  OF   UNION   SEMINARY   ACCEPTED.      41 

minster  Confession  of  Faith  as  containing  the  system  of  doc- 
trine taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  ?  Here  is  the  pledge 
taken  by  every  professor,  whatever  may  be  his  chair  : 

I  believe  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments 
to  be  the  Word  of  God,  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and 
practice  ;  and  I  do  now,  in  the  presence  of  God  and  the 
directors  of  this  Seminary,  solemnly  and  sincerely  receive  and 
adopt  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  as  containing  the 
s^'stem  of  doctrine  taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures.  I  do  also, 
in  like  manner,  approve  of  the  Presbjiierian  Form  of  Govern- 
ment ;  and  I  do  solemnly  promise  that  I  will  not  teach  or 
inculcate  anything  which  shall  appear  to  me  to  be  subversive 
of  said  system  of  doctrines,  or  of  the  principles  of  said 
Form  of  Government,  so  long  as  I  shall  continue  to  be  a 
professor  in  the  Seminary. 

{/).  Acceptance  of  the  offer  of  Union  Seminary  made  to 
the  General  Assembly  in  its  memorial  of  1870. 

Let  118  now  go  back  to  the  meeting  of  the  Assembly  in 
Philadelphia.  Dr.  Adams,  as  we  have  seen,  was  appointed 
chairman  of  the  Standing  Committee  on  Theological  Sem- 
inaries. He  asked,  as  a  personal  favor,  I  repeat,  to  be  ex- 
cused from  serving  in  that  capacity,  on  the  ground  that  all 
the  seminaries  under  the  care  of  the  Assembly  belonged  to 
what  had  been  the  Old  School  branch,  but  his  request  was 
not  granted.  Before  this  Committee  came  the  memorial 
of  Union  Theological  Seminary  and  also  a  memorial  from 
Princeton  of  similar  tenor;  the  difference  between  them 
being  that  Princeton  asked  what  it  deemed  a  great  favor  to 
itself,  while  Union  asked  what  it  believed  would  be  a  great 
favor  to  Princeton  and  other  seminaries.  The  report  of  the 
Committee  led  to  no  discussion,  met  with  no  opposition, 
and  was  unanimously  adopted.  Here  follow  some  extracts 
from  this  report ; 


42  FNIOIS'   SEMINAKY  AND   THE  ASSEMBLY. 

That  the  relations  of  these  several  theological  seminaries, 
differing  in  origin  and  administration,  to  the  reunited  Church 
should  be  regarded  as  a  matter  of  no  little  delicacy  and  diffi- 
culty, was  inevitable.  On  the  one  hand  it  is  obvious  that  a 
matter  so  important  as  the  education  of  its  ministry  should 
in  some  way  be  under  the  supervision  and  control  of  the 
Church,  so  as  to  secure  the  entire  and  cordial  confidence  of 
the  Church.  On  the  other  hand,  there  is  a  liberty  and  flexi- 
bility in  the  matter  which  must  be  resjoected  and  allowed. 
If  individuals  or  associations  are  disposed  to  found  and  en- 
dow seminaries  of  their  own,  there  is  no  power  in  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  to  forbid  it. 

As  to  any  project  by  which  the  entire  control  and  admin- 
istration of  all  our  theological  seminaries, — for  example,  as  to 
the  election  of  trustees, — can  be  transferred  to  the  General 
Assembly  on  any  principle  of  complete  uniformity,  your 
Committee  regard  it  as  whoUy  impracticable,  and  the  attempt 
to  accomplish  it  altogether  undesii'able.  To  bring  it  about, 
should  it  be  undertaken,  would  require  an  amount  of  legisla- 
tion, in  six  or  seven  different  States,  which  would  be  por- 
tentous. 

Besides,  the  intentions  and  wishes  of  benevolent  men 
who  have  founded  and  endowed  some  of  these  seminaries, 
and  aided  others  on  their  present  footing,  should  be  honora- 
bly and  zealously  protected. 

Tour  Committee,  therefore,  would  recommend  no  change 
and  no  attempt  at  change  in  this  direction,  save  such  as  may 
safely  and  wisely  be  effected  under  existing  charters.  For 
example,  the  directors  of  the  seminary  at  Princeton  have 
memorialized  this  Assembly  with  the  request  that  the  Assem- 
bly would  so  far  change  its  "  plan "  of  control  over  that  in- 
stitution as  to  give  the  board  of  directors  enlarged  rights  in 
several  specified  particulars,  subject  to  the  veto  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly. 

Your  Committee  are  unanimously  of  the  opinion  that  the 
changes  asked  for  are  eminently  wise  and  proper.   If  it  were 


THE  OFFER  OF  U:^riON  SEMINARY  ACCEPTED.   43 

within  the  power  of  the  General  Assembly  to  remit  the  en- 
tire administration  of  this  venerable  institution  to  its  board 
of  directors  without  any  of  the  restrictions  they  have  men- 
tioned as  to  the  supply  of  their  own  vacancies,  they  would 
cordially  recommend  it.  But  inasmuch  as  the  endowments 
of  this  Seminary  are  held  on  the  condition  that  it  should  be 
the  property  and  under  the  control  of  the  General  Assembly 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States,  that  trust 
cannot  be  vacated  nor  transferred  to  any  other  body.  The 
method  desired  and  proposed  by  the  directors  themselves  is 
open  to  no  such  objection,  and  is  believed  to  be  quite  within 
the  provisions  of  the  law  as  now  defined,  being  only  a  con- 
venient and  wise  mode  of  executing  by  the  General  Assem- 
bly itself  the  trust  which  it  now  holds. 

A  memorial  has  been  presented  to  this  Assembly  from  the 
directors  of  Union  Theological  Seminary,  in  New  York,  bear- 
ing upon  the  point  of  uniformity  as  to  a  certain  kind  and 
amount  of  ecclesiastical  supervision. 

It  had  appeared  to  them — many  of  them  having  taken  an 
active  part  in  founding  that  Seminary  thirty-three  years  ago, 
in  a  time,  as  already  noticed,  of  memorable  excitement — that 
there  were  great  disadvantages  and  perils  in  electing  profes- 
sors and  teachers  by  the  Assembly  itself,  without  sufficient 
time  or  opportunity  for  acquaintance  with  the  qualifications 
of  men  to  be  appointed  to  offices  of  such  responsibility. 

It  is  self-evident,  as  yoiu*  Committee  are  agreed,  that  a 
body  so  large  as  the  General  Assembly,  and  composed  of 
men  resident,  most  of  them,  at  so  great  a  distance  from  the 
several  seminaries,  is  not  so  competent  to  arrange  for  their 
interests  and  usefulness  as  those  having  local  and  personal 
intimacy  with  them.  Desirous  of  bringing  about  as  much 
uniformity  as  was  possible  in  the  relation  of  the  seminaries 
to  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Church,  the  directors  of 
Union  Seminary  have  memoriahzed  this  Assembly  to  the 
effect  that  the  Assembly  would  commit,  so  far  as  practicable, 
the  general  administration  of  all  seminaries  now  under  the 


44  UNION  SEMINARY   AND   THE  ASSEMBLY. 

control  of  the  Assembly  to  their  several  boards  of  directors  ; 
proposing,  if  this  be  done,  to  give  to  the  General  Assembly 
what  it  does  not  now  possess,  the  right  of  veto  in  the  election 
of  professors  at  Union.  In  this  generous  offer,  looking  solely 
to  the  peace  and  harmony  of  the  Church,  the  memorialists 
did  not  include  the  same  veto  in  regard  to  the  election  of 
their  own  directors,  inasmuch  as  these  directors  hold  the 
property  of  the  Seminary  in  trust.  The  trustees  of  Princeton 
Seminary,  being  one  of  two  boards,  are  a  close  corporation. 
The  directors  of  Union  Seminary  in  New  York,  being  but 
one  board,  are  the  trustees. 

,  Leaving  all  the  diversities  of  method  and  administration 
in  the  several  seminaries  intact,  save  in  the  particulars  here- 
inafter provided  for,  your  Committee  are  happy  to  report 
that  there  is  one  mode  of  unifying  all  the  seminaries  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  as  to  ecclesiastical  supervision,  so  far  as 
unification  is  in  any  way  desirable.  It  is  the  mode  suggested 
in  the  several  memorials  of  the  directors  of  Union  and  Prince- 
ton, and  approved,  or  likely  to  be  approved,  from  informa- 
tion in  our  possession,  by  the  directors  of  Auburn  and  Lane. 
This  is  to  give  to  the  General  Assembly  a  veto  power  upon 
the  appointment  of  professors  in  all  these  several  institutions. 
This  seems  to  your  Committee  to  secure  aU  the  uniformity, 
as  to  the  relation  of  these  seminaries  to  the  Church,  which 
can  be  necessary  to  ensure  general  confidence  and  satisfac- 
tion. Less  than  this  might  excite  jealousy,  more  than  this  is 
cumbersome  and  undesirable.* 

*  The  full  report  will  be  found  in  Moore's  Digest  of  1886, 
pp.  383-386.  It  is  proper  to  say  here,  that  two  statements 
in  the  report  are  somewhat  inaccurate  ;  namely,  that  relating 
to  the  ecclesiastical  connection  in  1836  of  the  founders  of 
Union  Seminary,  and  that  relating  to  "the  design  of  its 
founders."  Their  own  language  touching  this  point,  as  also 
the  facts  with  regard  to  their  ecclesiastical  connection,  axe 
given  in  an  earlier  part  of  this  paper. 


THE   OFFER  OF   UNION   SEMINARY   ACCEPTED.      45 

I  have  said  that  the  report  of  the  Standing  Committee 
on  Theological  Seminaries  naet  with  no  opposition.  The 
offer  of  Union  Seminary,  which  was  wholly  unexpected  to 
the  great  body  of  commissioners,  whether  of  the  Old  or 
New  School,  made  the  happiest  impression  upon  the  As- 
sembly and  called  forth  strong  words  of  satisfaction  and 
thankfulness.  And  yet  the  Committee  appear  to  have 
been  in  some  doubt  whether  all  the  seminaries,  then  be- 
longing to  the  General  Assembly,  would  be  willing  to  pass 
from  under  its  immediate  control ;  for  the  report  closes 
with  this  resolution  : 

In  case  the  board  of  directors  of  any  theological  semi- 
nary now  under  the  control  of  the  General  Assembly  shovdd 
prefer  to  retain  their  present  relation  to  this  body,  the  plan 
of  such  seminary  shall  remain  unaltered. 

Whatever  doubt,  if  any,  led  to  this  provision,  it  was 
speedily  solved  in  the  acceptance  of  the  Princeton  plan 
by  all  the  other  seminaries  hitherto  belonging  to  the  Old 
School ;  while  Lane,  that,  like  Union,  was  independent  of  ec- 
clesiastical control,  and  Auburn,  which  was  under  the  watch 
and  care  of  four  adjacent  synods,  fell  in  also  with  the  new 
arrangement  by  conceding  to  the  General  Assembly  a  veto 
over  the  election  of  their  professors.  I  do  not  find  that, 
at  the  time,  these  changes  involved  any  public  discussion, 
or  even  attracted  public  notice.  Such  was  the  confiding 
and  hopeful  temper  of  the  reunited  Church,  that  they  seem 
to  have  followed  the  action  at  Philadelphia  almost  as  a 
matter  of  course. 

And  yet  it  would  be  untrue  to  say  that  the  new  order  of 
things  at  once  allayed  all  the  "  apprehensions  "  and  "  jeal- 
ousy," referred  to  in  the  report  of  the  Standing  Committee 
on  theological  seminaries  at  Philadelphia.  "Apprehen- 
sions," if  not  "  jealousy,"  did  continue  to  exist,  especially  at 


46  UNION   SEMINARY   AND   THE   ASSEMBLY. 

Princeton  ;  other-wise  it  would  be  scarcely  possible  to  ex- 
plain some  facts  in  the  case,  notorious  at  the  time.  To 
show  that  I  do  not  speak  at  random,  I  will  give  an  item 
sent  by  me  to  The  Evangelist  shortly  after  the  Assembly 
of  1870  had  adjourned.     It  was  as  follows  : 

A    STRANGE    EXCEPTION. 

In  appointing  directors  of  its  theological  seminaries,  as 
also  trustees  and  members  of  its  various  boards,  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  seems  to  have  been  actuated  by  an  admirable 
spirit  of  wisdom,  fairness,  and  liberality.  In  this  spirit  it 
actually  removed  six  of  its  own  trustees,  all  of  them  gentle- 
men of  the  highest  character,  in  order  to  give  due  repre- 
sentation to  the  late  New  School  side.  The  same  excellent 
spirit  was  shown  in  choosing  ten  new  directors  for  the  semi- 
nary of  the  Northwest.  But  there  is  one  marked  exception, 
which,  we  frankly  confess,  has  struck  us,  as  we  know  it  has 
struck  others,  with  a  good  deal  of  surprise.  "We  refer  to  the 
new  directors  of  Princeton  Seminary.     They  are  as  follows  : 

Directors  of  Princeton  Seminary. — Ministers  :  WilHam  D. 
Snodgrass,  D.D.,  Joseph  McElroy,  D.D.,  G.  W.  Musgrave, 
D.D.,  Robert  Hammill,  D.D.,  Joseph  T.  Smith,  D.D.,  Robert 
Davidson,  D.D.,  Gardiner  Spring,  D.D.  Elders  :  Robert 
Carter,  John  K.  Finley,  George  Sharswood,  LL.D.,  Thomas 
C.  M.  Paton,  to  fill  the  place  of  Moses  Allen. 

In  The  Evangelist  of  the  following  week  appeared  a 
careful  editorial,  entitled  "Princeton  Theological  Semi- 
nary," and  I  give  herewith  extracts  from  this  article,  under- 
scoring some  passages,  in  order  that  they  may  the  more 
easily  be  compared  with  the  official  reports  of  the  Joint 
Committee  and  of  the  action  of  the  General  Assemblies, 
cited  in  earlier  parts  of  this  paper  : 

A  paragraph  in  our  last  paper  referred  to  the  reappoint- 
ment of  the  former  directors  of  this  Seminary,  all  of  whom 
belonged  to  the  former  Old  School  branch  of  the  Church,  as 


THE   OFFER   OF   UNION   SEMINARY   ACCEPTED.      47 

an  apparent  exception  to  the  rule  of  the  late  General  Assem- 
bly to  Tinite  representatives  of  both  branches  in  all  its  ap- 
pointments. We  are  happy  to  be  informed  that  the  impres- 
sion of  inequality  conveyed  by  our  statement  is  not  warranted 
by  the  facts,  and  that  so  far  from  being  an  exception  to  the 
rule  of  courtesy  and  fairness  observed  by  the  Assembly,  this 
reappointment  of  the  former  directors  of  Princeton  was  only 

another   instance   of   the  same  generous  spirit The 

Joint  Committee  on  Reunion  vmanimously  recognized  it  as 
fair  and  proper  that  while  the  New  School  seminaries  were, 
and  after  the  union  must  continue  to  be,  under  the  exclusive 
control  of  New  School  men,  by  whom  they  had  been  founded 
and  endowed,  the  Old  School  seminaries  should,  in  like  man- 
ner, be  under  the  direction  of  Old  School  men.  The  Com- 
mittee therefore  proposed,  as  one  of  the  terms  of  reunion,  that 
any  of  these  seminaries  might  withdraw  from  the  control  of 
the  united  Assembly.  This,  however,  could  not  be  done  in 
the  case  of  the  Old  School  seminaries,  as  all  their  endow- 
ments were  held  on  the  condition  of  their  being  under  the 
General  Assembly.  It  was  therefore  next  proposed  that  the 
boards  of  directors  should  be  authorized  to  elect  professors, 
and  to  fill  their  own  vacancies,  subject  to  the  veto  of  the 
General  Assembly.  Thus  no  man  could  be  either  a  professor 
or  director  who  has  not  the  confidence  of  the  body  repre- 
senting the  whole  Church.  This  plan  was  adopted  by  a  unan- 
imous vote  of  the  Assembly.  It  must  be  noted,  however,  that 
this  rule,  so  far  as  directors  are  concerned,  applies  only  to 
"  the  seminaries  now  under  the  control  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly." The  choice  of  directors  under  the  former  New  School 
seminaries  is  not  subject  to  such  veto.  It  seemed  then  only 
coiu-teous  and  fair  that  if  the  boards  of  dii'ectors  on  the  one 
side  must  of  necessity  remain  unchanged,  those  on  the  other 
side  should  occupy  a  similar  position,  and  hence  that  the 
gentlemen  whose  terms  of  service  at  Princeton  had  just  ex- 
pired, should  be  re-elected.  This  was  only  carrying  out  the 
same  spirit  of  candor  which  has  marked  all  the  Assembly's 
proceedings. 


48  UNION  SEMINAEY   AND   THE  ASSEMBLY. 

This  article,  whether  written  by  the  Old  School  editor 
of  The  Evangelist  or  by  some  one  else,  was  so  hopelessly 
confused  that  I  despaired  of  trying  to  correct  its  errors. 
Almost  every  statement  about  the  action  of  the  Joint  Com- 
mittee on  Reunion  or  that  of  the  Assembly  is  inaccurate  ; 
while  its  statements  about  the  former  Kew  School  semi- 
naries ai*e  directly  contrary  to  the  facts  in  the  case.  Union 
Seminary,  even  hefore  the  close  of  1869,  had  elected  two 
ministers  of  what,  a  few  weeks  earlier,  were  Old  School 
chui'ches,  namely.  Dr.  John  Hall  and  Dr.  James  O.  Murray, 
to  fill  two  clerical  vacancies  in  its  board  of  directors ;  and  in 
1870  it  filled  three  more  vacancies  by  the  election  of  three 
prominent  laymen  of  the  late  Old  School.  It  was  not  until 
1873  that  Princeton  elected  a  director  who  had  belonged  to 
the  New  School.  One  of  its  last  directors  of  distinctively 
New  School  antecedents  was  chosen,  I  beheve,  in  1882, 
viz.,  the  Rev.  Robert  Russell  Booth,  D.D.,  of  New  York, 
who  is  still  a  member  of  the  Princeton  board.  Of  course, 
as  the  years  pass  away,  all  special  thought  of  these  obsolete 
ecclesiastical  names  is  passing  away  with  them.  It  is  only 
fair  to  add  that  in  no  instance,  so  far  as  I  am  aware,  have 
former  New  School  men,  elected  to  such  boards  of  former 
Old  School  institutions,  dishonored  the  confidence  reposed 
in  them.  There  may  have  been  such  cases ;  if  so,  I  never 
heard  of  them. 

III. 

SKETCH  OF  THE  OPERATION  AND  EFFECTS  OF  THE  ASSEM- 
BLY'S VETO  POWER  IN  THE  ELECTION  OF  THEOLOGICAL 
PROFESSORS   FROM    1870   TO   THE   PRESENT   TIME. 

I  have  thus  endeavored  to  trace  from  stage  to  stage  the 
course  of  discussion  and  of  action  with  regard  to  theological 
seminaries  in  the  Joint  Committee  on  Reunion,  in  the  Old 


MlSAPPEEHENSIOJSr   AS   TO   THE  VETO   POWER.      49 

and  JSTew  School  General  Assemblies,  in  the  board  of  direct- 
ors of  Union  Seminary,  and  lastly  in  the  first  Assembly  of 
the  reunited  Church.  It  has  been  my  aim  to  give  as  far 
as  possible  all  the  main  facts,  omitting  nothing  essential  to 
a  right  understanding  of  the  case.  At  the  beginning  of 
the  investigation  my  mind  was  very  much  in  the  dark 
respecting  a  number  of  important  points,  but  after  patient 
research  and  inquiry,  now  and  then  not  a  little  to  my  own 
surprise,  the  needed  light  appeared.  I  will  now  proceed 
to  a  sketch  of  the  practical  working  and  effects  of  the  As- 
sembly's veto  power  from  1870  to  the  present  time. 

{a).  Early  and  frequent  'misapprehension  of  the  extent  of 
this  power  on  the  part  of  the  General  Assemhly. 

The  facts  bearing  on  this  point  are  equally  curious  and 
instructive.  They  are  curious  as  an  illustration  of  the 
tendency  in  all  popular  bodies — a  tendency  partly  innate, 
and  in  part  the  effect  of  ignorance,  prejudice,  or  passion — 
to  stretch  their  prerogative  in  the  exercise  of  power.  The 
facts  are  instructive  as  illustrating  the  old  maxim  that  "  the 
price  of  liberty  is  eternal  vigilance,"  and  also  the  painful 
truth  that  even  a  court  of  Jesus  Christ  is  not  exempt  from 
the  infirmities  of  human  nature.  Good  men  when,  armed 
with  authority,  they  meet  together  for  the  performance  of 
important  duties  and  the  promotion  of  sacred  objects,  mean, 
of  course,  to  do  the  thing  that  is  right,  and,  especially,  to 
keep  the  whole  law  under  which  they  act ;  but  how 
strangely  they  often  err,  on  the  right  hand  and  on  the  left ! 

Nothing  would  seem  to  be  plainer  than  the  power  of 
disapproval  as  conceded  to  the  General  Assembly  in  1870, 
and  yet  upon  the  very  first  opportunity  to  exercise  this 
power,  at  Chicago  in  1871,  the  Standing  Committee  on 
Theological  Seminaries  recommended  the  "approval"  of 
certain  elections  reported  to  the  Assembly ;  and  had  it  not 


50  UNION   SEMINARY    AND   THE   ASSEMBLY. 

been  for  the  presence  of  Henry  B.  Smith  as  commissioner 
from  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  the  recommendation 
would  no  doubt  have  been  unanimously  adopted.  The 
"  official  journal "  of  the  Assembly  contains  the  following 
record : 

UNION    SEMINARY. 

Prof.  Hemy  B.  Smith,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  of  Union  Theological 
Seminary,  New  York  City,  moved  an  amendment  to  the 
report  of  the  Standing  Committee  on  Theological  Seminaries 
thus  : 

Resolved,  That  the  clauses  of  the  report  of  the  committee 
be  modified  or  stricken  out  which  express  in  the  name  of  the 
Assembly  "approval"  of  the  elections  of  directors  or  pro- 
fessors in  the  seminaries  that  have  adopted  the  plan  sug- 
gested by  Union  Seminary,  and  ratified  by  the  Assembly  in 
1870  [see  minutes,  pp.  64,  65,  148]  ;  since  according  to 
said  plan  such  elections  are  complete  unless  "  vetoed  "  by  the 
Assembly  to  which  they  are  reported. 

Dr.  Musgrave  hoped  this  amendment  would  be  sustained. 
Union  Seminary  has  courteously,  and  as  he  thought  wisely, 
conceded  this  measure  of  control  over  it  by  the  General 
Assembly,  and  it  was  only  fair  and  honorable  to  accept  this 
amendment.     It  was  so  ordered. 

One  would  have  supposed  that  this  formal  interpretation 
of  the  extent  of  its  veto  power  contained  in  the  resolution 
offered  by  Prof.  Smith,  and  seconded  by  Dr.  Musgrave  as 
"  only  fair  and  honorable,"  by  a  unanimous  vote  of  the 
Assembly  itself,  would  have  settled  the  question  for  all 
time.  It  did  no  such  thing.  Only  two  years  later  at 
Baltimore  the  Standing  Committee  on  Theological  Semina- 
ries repeated  the  error  of  1871,  and  was  sustained  in  doing 
so  by  the  unanimous  vote  of  the  General  Assembly.*     Nor 

*The   committee  would  recommend  that  the  Assembly 


QUIESCENCE   OF  THE   VETO   POWER.  51 

was  that  the  last  of  this  remarkable  misapprehension.  Since 
1870  about  sixty  elections,  appointments,  and  transfers 
have  been  reported  to  the  General  Assembly.  Of  these 
some  twenty  have  been  "recognized,"  "approved,"  or 
their  "  confirmation "  voted  by  the  General  Assembly ; 
in  other  words,  in  a  third  of  the  cases  reported,  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  did  what  it  had,  confessedly,  no  legal  power 
to  do.*  These  figm-es  will  be  found  nearly,  if  not 
altogether,  accurate,  and  they  show  how  easily  the  most 
intelligent  and  conscientious  ecclesiastical  bodies  are  led  to 
exercise  power  that  does  not  belong  to  them.  The  chronic 
misapprehension  of  which  I  am  speaking  cropped  out  at 
almost  every  turn  in  the  newspaper  discussions  of  the  veto 
power,  before  and  after  the  meeting  of  the  last  Assembly, 
and  also  at  Detroit  itself. 

{b).   Quiescence  of  the  Assenihly's  veto  power  from 
1870  to  1891. 

For  twenty  years  the  veto  power,  conceded  to  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  in  1870  by  Union  Seminary,  remained  qui- 
escent. During  all  this  period  it  was  never  used.  Wliile 
many  appointments  were  "  confirmed,"  or  "  approved  " — 
illegally,  to  be  sure — not  one  was  vetoed  /  a  striking  proof, 

appwe  the  election  of  the  Eev.  Philip  Schaff,  D.D,,  to  the 
Brown  professorship  of  Hebrew,  and  of  the  Eev.  George  L. 
Prentiss,  D.D.,  to  the  Skinner  and  McAlphin  professorship  of 
Pastoral  Theology,  Church  Polity,  and  Missionary  [Mission] 
Work.     [See  minutes  of  1873,  page  580.J 

*  Except  in  the  case  of  Auburn  Seminary.  On  entering 
into  connection  with  the  General  Assembly  this  Seminary,  in 
1873,  as  I  shall  show  later,  had  adopted  a  by-law  by  which 
the  appointments  of  its  professors  were  "primarily  made 
conditional  upon  the  approval  of  the  General  Assembly." 
Why  this  vital  change  in  the  agreement  of  1870  was  made 


52  UNION   SEMINARY   AND   THE   ASSEMBLY. 

certainly,  of  the  brotherly  harmony  and  good-will  that 
prevailed  in  the  reunited  Church,  as  also  of  the  wise  pru- 
dence of  our  theological  seminaries  in  the  choice  of  their 
teachers.  It  seemed,  indeed,  as  if  the  fears  of  Henry  B. 
Smith,  D.  "Willis  James,  and  others,  who  regarded  the 
agreement  of  1870  with  so  much  misgiving,  were  shown  by 
the  test  of  experience  to  have  been  groundless.  The  veto 
power,  however,  was  not  wholly  forgotten.  In  the  case  of 
Eev.  R.  W.  Patterson,  D.D.,  in  18Y3,  and  perhaps  in  a  few 
other  instances,  a  professor-elect  and  his  friends  were  re- 
minded, in  a  somewhat  menacing  way,  that  such  a  power, 
though  dormant,  was  still  in  existence,  and  might  of  a 
sudden  wake  up.* 

(c).  Sudden  use  of  the  veto  power  in  1891. 

Wherever  real  power  exists,  it  is  sure  to  make  itself  felt. 
Its  turn  always  comes,  sooner  or  later ;  nor  is  the  opportuni- 
ty apt  to  be  neglected,  when  a  much-desired  object,  whether 
good  or  bad,  can  be  secured  by  its  exercise.  What  is  called 
the  spoils  system,  for  example — a  system  which  has  done 
so  much  to   poison   and   vulgarize   our  political   life — is 

by  the  board  of  commissioners  of  Auburn  Seminary,  I  do 
not  know.  But,  of  course,  that  Seminary  alone  was  bound 
by  it. 

*  In  1873  my  appointment  to  a  professorship  in  the  then 
Northwestern  Theological  Seminary  was  threatened  with  veto 
on  the  ground  that  I  had  lately  in  the  Swing  trial  expressed 
the  wish  that  the  Confession  of  Faith  might  soon  be  revised. 
How  would  that  sound  now  ?  But  my  orthodox  opponents 
were  quieted,  as  I  was  afterward  informed,  by  the  statement 
of  the  Committee  on  Seminaries,  that  in  not  vetoing  the 
Assembly  xcovld  not  necessarily  approve.  Time  changes  both 
sentiment  and  logic.  [Letter  of  Rev,  Dr.  Patterson,  dated 
Evanston,  HI.,  Aug.  14,  1891.] 


SUDDEN    USE   OF   THE   VETO   POWER.  53 

largely  the  outgrowth  of  that  simple  power  of  removal, 
which  the  Congress  of  1789  decided  to  belong  exclusively 
to  the  President.  At  the  time  nobody  seems  to  have 
dreamed  that  any  special  hann  would  come  through  an 
abuse  of  the  power.  Mr,  Madison,  whose  influence  was 
most  potent  in  this  decision  of  the  first  Congress,  declared 
that  if  a  President  should  exercise  his  power  of  removal 
from  mere  personal  motives,  or  except  in  extreme  cases,  he 
would  deserve  to  be  impeached.  And  for  more  than  a 
third  of  a  century  Executive  patronage  was  used  solely  as 
a  public  trust  by  Washington  and  the  other  great  patriots 
who  then  ruled  the  country.  Even  after  1820,  when  the 
mischievous  Four  Years'  law  was  passed,  during  the 
second  term  of  Monroe  and  the  whole  term  of  John 
Quincy  Adams,  very  few  removals  were  made,  and  those 
in  every  case  for  cause.  Only  here  and  there  a  far-seeing 
statesman  surmised  what,  during  the  next  third  of  a  cen- 
tury, lay  wrapped  up  in  the  unUmited  power  of  removal, 
when,  instead  of  being  used  as  a  public  trust,  it  was  going 
to  be  so  largely  prostituted  to  vulgar  greed  and  the  ruthless 
animosities  of  selfish  partisanship.  How  different  it  is 
now!  The  spoils  system  has  come  to  be  regarded,  not 
merely  by  a  few  far-seeing  statesmen,  but  by  tens  of 
thousands  of  our  most  thoughtful  and  patriotic  citizens,  of 
both  parties,  as,  on  the  whole,  the  greatest  evil  that,  since 
the  overthrow  of  slavery,  besets  the  moral  life  of  the 
country.  While  I  am  writing  this  paper  in  a  lovely  moun- 
tain valley  of  Vermont,  one  of  the  most  distinguished  of 
her  sons  is  depicting  her  heroic  services  in  the  Revolu- 
tionary war  and  the  civic  virtues  which  rendered  her  so 
meet,  in  advance  of  all  others,  to  join  the  Old  Thirteen  by 
admission  to  the  Union.  It  is  a  romantic  and  inspiring 
story,  told  with  an  eloquence  not  unworthy  of  Daniel 
Webster  or  of  Edward  Everett.     And  I  find  in  it  this 


64  UNION^   SEMINARY  AND   THE   ASSEMBLY. 

golden  passage  :  '*  We  have  lived  to  see  the  prohibition  of 
slavery  in  the  earliest  constitution  of  Vermont,  become  a 
part  of  the  fundamental  law  of  this  nation.  May  the  time 
be  not  far  off  when  its  declaration  against  that  other  and 
more  widespread  curse  which  corrupts  and  degrades  free 
government,  shall  be  likewise  put  in  force  by  the  body  of 
the  American  people."  * 

I  have  given  an  illustration  from  our  political  history 
of  the  way  in  which  power  long  quiescent  may  of  a  sud- 
den, when  the  fitting  opportunity  occurs,  spring  into  vigor- 
ous and  baleful  action.  Illustrations  still  more  impressive 
might  be  drawn  from  the  history  of  the  Christian  Church. 

Months  before  the  Assembly  met  at  Detroit  it  became 
apparent  to  observing  eyes  that  the  transfer  of  the  Rev. 
Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  to  the  new  chair  of  Biblical  The- 
ology in  Union  Seminary  was  to  be  sharply  contested,  and, 
if  possible,  vetoed.  The  contest,  of  course,  would  rest  upon 
the  ground  that  a  transfer  is  equivalent  to  an  original  elec- 
tion, and  subject,  therefore,  to  the  disapproval  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly.  There  had  long  existed  throughout  the 
Presbyterian  Church  great  dissatisfaction  with  some  of  Dr. 
Briggs'  views  as  expressed  in  his  writings ;  and  had  oppor- 
tunity occurred  sooner,  it  would  doubtless  have  been  seized 
to  attempt  his  removal,  by  act  of  the  General  Assembly, 
from  the  Faculty  of  Union  Seminary. 

The  feeling  against  Dr.  Briggs,  already  existing  and 
widespread,  was  very  much  intensified  by  the  address  which 
he  delivered  on  being  inducted  into  his  new  chair,  January 
20,  1891.  In  response  to  this  address  a  large  number  of 
Presbyteries  overtured  the  General  Assembly  on  the  sub- 
ject.    The  address  also  led  to  the  initiation  of  a  judicial 

*  Oration  at  the  dedication  of  the  Bennington  Battle  Monu- 
ment, etc.,  etc.,  by  E.  J.  Phelps. 


THE   COMMISSIONEES   AND   VETO   AT  DETROIT.      55 

process  in  the  Presbytery  of  TSTew  York.  When  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  met  on  the  21st  of  May,  the  excitement 
about  Dr.  Briggs  and  his  case  had  reached  a  very  high 
pitch.  The  press,  both  religious  and  secular,  discussed  the 
matter  with  extraordinary  interest.  There  had  been  nothing 
like  it  since  the  reunion ;  nothing,  in  truth,  like  or  equal 
to  it  since  the  tempestuous  days  of  1837-38,  when  both 
the  ecclesiastical  and  theological  storm-centre  swept  down 
with  such  fury  on  the  old  City  of  Brotherly  Love.  And 
the  key  to  the  whole  situation  was  the  veto  power.  Had 
it  been  admitted  on  all  hands  that  a  transfer  differs  essen- 
tially from  an  original  election,  and  is  not  subject  to  the 
Assembly's  disapproval,  there  still  might  have  been  a  Dr. 
Briggs  case,  but  it  would  not  have  been  the  case  that  in 
May  last  drew  the  attention  of  the  whole  country  to 
Detroit. 

{d).  The  General  AasemUy  at  Detroit,  and  how  to  judge 
its  course. 
Although  my  impression  of  the  action  of  the  General 
Assembly  at  Detroit  in  the  case  of  Dr.  Briggs  is  anything 
but  favorable,  my  impression  of  the  Assembly  itself  is 
favorable,  on  the  whole,  in  a  high  degree.  Judging  from 
all  I  have  read  and  what  I  have  heard  from  the  lips  of 
those  who  were  present  as  lookers-on,  it  seems  to  me  to 
have  been  a  superior  body  of  Christian  men.  They  came 
from  far  and  near,  from  city  and  country,  from  the  Atlan- 
tic and  the  Pacific  shores,  and  from  the  most  distant  parts 
of  heathendom.  They  differed  immensely  in  age,  in  train- 
ing, in  experience,  in  temperament,  in  social  habits  and 
tastes,  in  their  way  of  looking  at  things,  in  the  types  of 
piety  and  religious  thought  which  they  represented ;  but 
they  were  very  much  alike  in  their  love  to  Jesus  Christ, 
in  their  faith  in  His  blessed  gospel,  in  their  reverence  for 
the  Holy  Scriptures,  in  their  God-fearing  patriotism  and 


66  UNION   SEMINARY   AND   THE  ASSEMBLY. 

philanthropy.  Eye-witnesses  told  me  that  they  never  saw 
a  body  of  good  men  who  appeared  more  sincerely  desirous 
to  do  right,  and  to  do  it  in  a  Christian  spirit.  I  was  espe- 
cially touched  by  what  I  heard  about  Judge  Breckinridge, 
for  it  recalled  pleasant  boyish  impressions  of  his  distin- 
guished and  excellent  father.  He  belonged  to  a  historic 
family,  and  his  own  character  added  honor  to  the  name. 
Only  the  evening  before  his  sudden  death  he  expressed  to 
a  friend  of  mine  his  keen  anxiety  respecting  the  case  of 
Dr.  Briggs,  and  his  deep  sense  of  responsibility  in  the  vote 
he  was  about  to  give.  His  last  words  attest  how  sincerely 
he  spoke. 

It  is  quite  possible  to  respect  and  even  admire  a  man's 
character,  and  to  take  for  granted  the  purity  of  his  motives, 
without  always  approving  his  conduct  or  assenting  to  his 
logic.  And  what  is  thus  true  with  regard  to  individuals 
may  be  no  less  true  with  regard  to  a  body  of  men,  to  a 
party,  to  a  community,  and  to  a  whole  people.  Were  it 
not  so,  history,  instead  of  being  one  of  the  most  interesting 
and  instructive  of  studie's,  would  be  repulsive  and  demoral- 
izing beyond  expression.  It  will  ever  redound  to  the  honor 
of  the  American  people  that  when  the  stress  and  agony  of 
their  struggle  for  national  hfe  and  freedom  was  once  passed, 
the  whirlwind  of  embittered  passions  it  had  aroused  began 
to  subside,  just  as  the  waves  of  an  angry  sea  dashing  upon 
a  rock-bound  coast  die  away  after  the  storm  is  over.  And 
these  passions  have  been  subsiding  ever  since.  The  mag- 
nanimous and  patriotic  sentiments  of  mutual  confidence, 
love,  patience,  and  brotherhood,  which  are  the  crowning 
glory  of  our  Christian  civilization,  have  been  more  and 
more  taking  their  place,  and  will  continue  to  do  so,  let  us 
hope,  until  the  billows  of  sectional  strife  shall  have 

quite  forgot  to  rave, 

While  birds  of  calm  sit  brooding  on  the  charmed  wave. 


THE   COMMISSIONERS   AND   VETO   AT   DETROIT.      57 

Or,  to  take  an  illustration  from  our  Presbyterian  annals, 
was  not  the  reunion  of  the  severed  branches  of  the  Church 
in  1869  a  genuine  triumph  of  similar  sentiments?  We  re- 
tained, whoever  cared  to  do  so,  our  old  differences  of  opin- 
ion respecting  the  causes  and  merits,  or  demerits,  of  the 
Exscinding  Acts,  the  Disruption  of  1838,  and  the  thirty 
years  of  alienation  between  Old  School  and  New  School ; 
but  for  all  that,  led,  no  doubt,  by  a  Divine  hand,  we  came 
together  again  in  the  spirit  of  mutual  trust  and  love,  for- 
giving and  forgetting,  in  order  that  we  might  the  more 
effectually  do  the  good  works  foreordained  for  us  as  a 
Church  to  walk  in.  And  yet,  even  to  this  day,  how  far  are 
we  from  thinking  alike  about  the  events  of  183Y-38,  or 
about  the  wisdom  of  the  men  who  taught  and  led  the  con- 
tending schools !  But  it  now  costs  us  probably  no  great 
effort  to  admit  that  they,  at  all  events,  were  good  men,  fear- 
ing God,  and  honestly  meaning,  as  well  as  trying,  to  keep 
His  commandments. 

For  myself,  I  remember  well  the  day  when  to  my  youth- 
ful fancy  Albert  Barnes  was  the  very  embodiment  of  pious 
good  sense,  meek  wisdom,  and  uprightness,  as  well  as  free- 
dom, of  mind  in  the  interpretation  of  Holy  Scripture  ; 
while  Robert  J.  Breckinridge  appeared  to  me  as  a  pugna- 
cious theological  "fire-eater,''  a  domineering  ecclesiastic, 
and  a  persecutor  of  the  saints.  My  impression  of  Albert 
Barnes  was  only  confirmed  when,  years  later,  I  learned  to 
love  and  revere  him  as  a  personal  friend.  But  time  and 
memorable  hours,  a  third  of  a  century  ago,  of  most  inter- 
esting talk  with  him,  in  the  company  of  Henry  B.  Smith, 
Roswell  D.  Hitchcock  and  other  congenial  spirits,  quite 
revolutionized  my  impression  of  Robert  J.  Breckinridge ; 
and  while  not  much  changing  my  opinion  of  certain  feat- 
ures of  his  course  in  1837-38,  his  relentless  hostility  to  re- 
union, or  his  way  of  doing  things,  I  have  ever  since  had 


58  UNION   SEMINAEY   AND   THE  ASSEMBLY. 

no  trouble  whatever  in  thinking  of  him  as  a  devoted  servant 
of  the  Lord,  as  an  able  theologian,  an  humble  Christian,  a 
great-hearted  patriot,  and  a  brave,  even  if  a  somewhat  rugged, 
type  of  old  Kentucky  manhood. 

While,  then,  I  feel  bound  to  criticise  the  Assembly's 
action  in  the  case  of  Dr.  Briggs  as  unfair,  wrong,  and  un- 
wise in  the  extreme,  let  no  one  suppose  me  to  be  imputing 
bad  motives  either  to  the  Assembly  or  to  the  men  who,  as 
I  think,  misled  it.  If  any  of  them  or  their  advisers  were 
actuated  by  such  motives,  that  is  not  my  business ;  let  them 
answer  for  it  to  their  own  consciences  and  to  God.  But  I 
go  further  than  this.  So  far  from  imputing  unworthy 
motives  to  most  of  the  commissioners  to  the  Assembly  at 
Detroit,  I  can  readily  believe  that  they  were  actuated  by  the 
best  of  motives.  By  their  votes,  in  disapproval  of  Dr. 
Briggs'  transfer  to  the  chair  of  Biblical  Theology,  they 
meant  to  express  no  personal  hostility  to  him,  but  a  hos- 
tility to  what  they  had  read  or  been  assured,  a  hundred 
times  over,  and  what  they  honestly  supposed,  were  his  opin- 
ions and  teaching  respecting  the  inspiration  and  authority 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  And  had  I  been  a  member  of  the 
Assembly,  viewed  the  subject  as  they  did,  and  deemed  it 
right  to  vote  at  all,  my  vote  would  have  gone  with  theirs. 
From  the  bottom  of  my  heart  I  sympathize  with  all  pious 
and  tender  feelings  toward  the  Bible,  with  jealousy  of  any 
rival  to  its  authority,  with  pain  and  grief  at  seeing  it  assailed 
from  without  or  lightly  esteemed  in  the  house  of  its  friends, 
and  with  awe  of  the  divine  majesty  and  glory  of  its  truths. 
Perhaps  more  or  less  of  ignorance  and  prejudice  may  be 
mixed  up  with  these  sentiments.  Be  it  so ;  but  how  much 
of  prejudice  and  ignorance  is  apt  to  be  mixed  up  w^th 
everybody's  best  sentiments!  If  I  must  choose  between 
ignorant  and  prejudiced  but  sincere  love  to  the  Word  of 
God  on  the  one  hand,  and  on  the  other  a  rationalistic,  fault- 


THE   COMMISSIONERS   AND   VETO   AT   DETROIT.      59 

finding  temper  of  mind  toward  it,  I  infinitely  prefer  the 
former.  The  Word  of  God,  which  liveth  and  abidetli  for- 
ever, is  the  sure  foundation  and  the  germinant  principle  of 
American  piety.  It  was  so  in  the  beginning  of  our  religi- 
ous life  as  a  people ;  it  has  been  so  ever  since ;  and  unless 
we  prove  recreant  to  our  great  trust,  it  will  be  so  in  all  the 
years  to  come.  So  far  as  criticism  of  the  Bible,  whether 
literary  or  theological,  aims  or  tends  to  subvert  this  founda- 
tion and  put  something  else  in  place  of  this  principle,  I,  for 
one,  am  opposed  to  it  utterly.  And  were  it  not  my  belief 
that  Dr.  Briggs  could  and  would  say  Amen  to  this  senti- 
ment, I  should  be  equally  opposed  to  him  also.  Biblical 
criticism,  whether  of  the  higher  or  lower  sort,  as  I  have  said 
elsewhere,  is  very  far  from  being  an  exact  science,  and  it 
mars  its  own  best  work  just  in  the  degree  that  it  puts  on 
the  airs  of  an  exact  science,  and  shouts  before  it  is  out  of 
the  woods.  That  has  been  the  bane  of  rationalism,  and  if 
co-existing  with  it,  is  none  the  less  a  bane  of  the  most  ortho- 
dox Christian  scholarship.  "  Seest  thou  a  man  wise  in  his 
own  conceit  ?  There  is  more  hope  of  a  fool  than  of  him." 
This  senseful  proverb  applies  not  to  persons  alone.  It  ap- 
plies also  to  every  kind  of  knowledge  relating  to  moral  and 
religious  truth,  more  especially  to  every  branch  of  knowl- 
edge that  deals  with  Holy  Scripture.  Scholarship  may  be 
never  so  able  and  learned,  yet  if  it  be  puffed  up  with  self- 
conceit,  if  not  animated  by  the  spirit  of  humility  and  rever- 
ence, it  is  certain  to  go  astray.  "  Let  no  man,"  to  use  the 
words  of  Lord  Bacon,  "  upon  a  weak  conceit  of  sobriety  or 
an  ill-applied  moderation,  think  or  maintain  that  a  man  can 
search  too  far  or  be  too  well  studied  in  the  book  of  God's 
Word  or  in  the  book  of  God's  works,  divinity  or  philoso- 
phy ;  but  rather  let  men  endeavor  an  endless  progress  and 
proficience  in  both ;  only  let  men  beware  that  they  apply 
both  to  charity  and  not  to  swelling;  to  use,  and  not  to 
ostentation." 


60  UNION   SEMINARY   AND   THE  ASSEMBLY. 

{e).  The  Case  against  Dr.  Brnggs  as  argued  hy  John  J. 

McCook. 

Of  course  the  case  against  Dr.  Briggs  was  set  before  the 
commissioners  in  a  variety  of  ways,  as  well  before  they  left 
home  as  upon  their  reaching  the  Assembly.  Probably  its 
most  plausible  presentation  upon  their  arrival  at  Detroit, 
was  in  a  lawyer's  brief  prepared  by  John  J,  McCook,  a 
well-kno\^Ti  member  of  the  New  York  Bar.*  This  brief, 
bristling  with  points,  and  fortified  by  an  array  of  legal  au- 
thority, was  well  ^i\j&^  jprima  facie  to  impress  the  ordinary 
lay  or  even  clerical  mind.  I  opened  my  own  copy,  not  with- 
out some  misgiving,  lest  the  ground  against  vetoing  Dr. 
Briggs,  which  had  seemed  to  me  so  firm,  should  slip  from 
under  my  feet.  Let  me  add  in  passing,  that  had  the  friends 
of  Union  Seminary  been  as  wise  and  zealous  in  their  gener- 
ation as  their  friends,  the  enemies  of  Dr.  Briggs,  the  result 
at  Detroit  might  have  been  quite  different. 

It  is  noteworthy  that  a  lawyer's  brief,  prepared  with  such 
care,  and  so  confident  in  its  tone,  should  betray  an  utter 
misapprehension  of  one  of  the  most  obvious  and  vital  feat- 
ures of  the  veto  power,  as  conceded  by  Union  Seminary  to 
the  General  Assembly.  It  is  solely,  as  the  General  Assem- 
bly itself  decided  in  18Y1;  the  power  of  c?mpproval ;  and 
yet  this  brief,  again  and  again,  assumes  that  it  was  no  less 
the  power  of  approval.  Here  are  instances:  "Thus,  all 
appointments  of  professors  are,  and  the  safety  of  the  Church 

*  One  Hundred  and  Third  General  Assembly  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Chm-ch  in  the  United  States  of  America,  Detroit, 
May,  1891.  Memorandum  of  facts  and  the  law  controlling 
the  relations  of  Union  Theological  Seminary  in  the  city  of 
New  York  to  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  by  John  J.  McCook, 
Commissioner  from  the  Presbytery  of  New  York. 


MR.  Mccook's  brief.  61 

demands  that  tliej  always  should  be,  made  by  the  directors 
conditionally,  first  upon  the  ajpjproval  of  the  General 
Assembly  "  (p.  18). 

Again,  "  Point  YIII.  The  only  question  before  this  As- 
sembly is  the  exercise  of  the  power  granted  to  it  by  Union 
Seminary  under  the  contract,  namely :  to  approve  or  dis- 
approve the  appointment  by  transfer  of  Dr.  Briggs  to  the 
new  chair  of  Biblical  Theology  "  (p.  31). 

Mr.  McCook  opens  his  brief  with  a  narration  of  the  ma- 
terial facts  bearing  upon  the  case.  He  then  makes  his 
"  Point  I,"  namely :  That  the  memorial  of  the  directors  of 
Union  Seminary  in  1870,  and  the  action  of  the  General 
Assembly  thereupon,  constituted  "a  contract  upon  valid 
considerations."  I  have  already  touched  upon  the  question 
of  contract  and  pass  it  here.  The  first  valid  consideration 
was  "  The  benefit  to  the  Union  Seminary  in  securing  the 
influence  and  name  of  the  General  Assembly  to  reassure 
jpupils  and  henefaotors  as  to  its  orthodoxy^  Imagine 
the  looks  of  wondering  incredulity  with  which  William 
Adams,  Henry  B.  Smith,  Thomas  H.  Skinner,  Koswell  D. 
Hitchcock,  Edwin  F.  Hatfield,  and  Jonathan  F.  Stearns— 
not  to  mention  others— would  have  listened  to  this  as- 
sertion !  I  am  sure  they  never  heard  a  lisp  of  it,  either 
before  or  after  1870.  And  although  for  nearly  forty  years 
connected  with  Union  Seminary  either  as  director  or  pro- 
fessor, I  read  it  for  the  first  time  in  this  brief.  The  state- 
ment implies  that  both  pupils  and  benefactors,  being  in 
serious  doubt  respecting  the  orthodoxy  of  the  institution, 
found  relief  in  the  agreement  of  1870.  What  pupils  ?  what 
benefactors?  and  where  is  the  evidence  that  the  Seminary  ' 
entered  into  the  "  contract"  of  1870  in  order  to  reassure  its 
pupils  and  benefactors  as  to  its  own  orthodoxy  ?  The  whole 
statement  is  not  only  utterly  without  foundation,  but  it  in- 
volves a  very  gross   and  offensive  imputation   upon   the 


62  UNION   SEMINAEY   AND   THE   ASSEMBLY. 

General  Assembly,  upon  Union  Seminary,  and  upon  all  the 
parties  concerned. 

No  principle  laid  down  in  tlie  Basis  of  reunion  in  1869 
was  more  emphatically  asserted  than  that  of  the  perfect 
equality  of  both  branches.  Old  School  and  New,  in  the 
matter  of  their  orthodoxy.  The  whole  movement  hinged 
upon  the  distinct  recognition  of  this  principle.  Had  Dr. 
jMusgrave,  Dr.  Beatty,  and  the  other  Old  School  leaders  in- 
timated that  Union  Seminary  was  not  as  sound  in  the  faith 
as  Princeton,  and  needed  the  influence  of  the  General  As- 
sembly to  "  reassure  pupils  and  benefactors  as  to  its  ortho- 
doxy," that  of  itself  would  have  broken  up  the  negotiations 
for  union. 

The  second  "  good  and  valuable  consideration,"  received 
by  the  Union  Seminary  under  this  "  contract,"  was  "  a  large 
increase  of  its  students,  drawn  from  all  parts  of  the  reunited 
Church."  This  statement  also  I  believe  to  be  entirely 
without  foundation.  Reunion,  according  to  the  best  of  my 
knowledge  and  belief,  brought  very  few  students  to  Union 
Seminary ;  while  it  undoubtedly  tended,  in  several  ways, 
to  draw  them  elsewhere.  It  wrought  a  great  change,  for 
example,  in  the  feeling  of  New  School  men  toward  Old 
School  seminaries,  as  well  as  toward  the  Old  School 
Church ;  and  thus  led  more  or  less  of  those  studying  for 
the  ministry  to  enter  these  seminaries,  who  would  never 
have  thought  of  doing  so  before  1870. 

The  following  table,  kindly  furnished  me  by  the  Rev. 
Charles  R.  Gillett,  librarian  of  Union  Seminary,  shows  at 
a  glance  the  number  of  students  for  twenty  years  before 
and  twenty  years  since  1870,  and  will  enable  the  reader  to 
judge  for  himself  as  to  the  probable  influence  of  the  General 
Assembly  upon  the  increase  of  its  students  by  "reassur- 
ing pupils  and  benefactors  of  the  orthodoxy"  of  the  in- 
stitution.    This  increase,  it  will  be  seen,  has  been  from  the 


MK.    MCCOOK  S   BRIEF. 


63 


first  somewhat  irregular.  Special  causes  have  from  time 
to  time  depleted  the  Seminary.  The  war  for  the  Union 
had  this  effect  in  a  marked  degree.  In  the  four  years  1861-5 
not  a  few  Union  students,  or  young  men,  who  were  in- 
tending to  enter  Union  Seminary,  were  at  the  front,  fight- 
ing the  battles  of  their  country.  Then  again  special  causes 
have  occasionally  increased  the  number  of  students ;  as,  for 
example,  the  expectation  that  the  World's  Fair  would  be 
held  in  New  York.  I  repeat  my  own  opinion,  that  the 
endorsement  of  its  orthodoxy  by  the  General  Assembly, 
during  all  these  twenty  years,  has  never  added  a  dozen  names 
to  the  roll  of  students  in  Union  Seminary. 


Students  in  Union  Seminaey,  by  yeaes   and   classes. 
Undergraduates  only. 


YEAR. 

SENIORS. 

MTDDLERS. 

JUNIORS. 

TOTALS. 

1890-91 

43 

60 

49 

152 

1889-90 

43 

49 

66 

158 

1888-89 

36 

47 

44 

127 

1887-88 

35 

39 

51 

125 

1886-87 

53 

41 

36 

130 

1885-86 

37 

49 

33 

119 

1884-85 

39 

37 

55 

131 

1883-84 

33 

37 

41 

ill 

1883-83 

39 

35 

42 

116 

1881-82 

37 

40 

43 

120 

1880-81 

36 

44 

40 

120 

1879-80 

38 

42 

50 

130 

1878-79 

43 

37 

39 

119 

1877-78 

45 

50 

47 

142 

1876-77 

48 

44 

47 

139 

1875-76 

36 

49 

51 

136 

1874-75 

43 

33 

40 

116 

1873-74 

37 

40 

34 

111 

1872-73 

43 

42 

36 

120 

1871-72 

36 

40 

38 

114 

Averages. 

39.95 

42.75 

44.10 

126.8 

64 


UNION  SEMINARY   AND   THE   ASSEMBLY, 


YEAR. 

1870-71.. 
1869-70. . 
l!<68-69. , 
1867-68. , 
1866-67. 
1865-66. 
1864-65. 
1863-64. 
1862-63. 
1861-62. 
1860-61. 
1859-60. 
1858-59. 
1857-58. 
1856-57. 
1855-56. 
1854-55. 
1853-54. 
1852-53. 
1851-53. 


SENIORS. 


MIDDLEP.g. 


Averages. 


37 

39 

43 

44 

36 

35 

23 

26 

38 

38 

37 

33 

38 

35 

33 

19 

36 

37 

33 

33 


30.6 


36 

37 

44 

43 

51 

38 

39 

37 

30 

33 

56 

49 

39 

40 

33 

31 

33 

31 

34 

21 


JUNIORS. 


36.6 


37 

37 

40 

47 

31 

50 

38 

33 

38 

39 

40 

59 

43 

43 

46 

40 

38 

40 

34 

30 


39.6 


110 
113 
137 
133 

108 

133 

100 

85 

86 

109 

133 

141 

130 

108 

103 

90 


74 
106.8 


YEAR. 

SENIORS. 

MTDDLERS. 

JUNIORS. 

TOTALS. 

1850-51 

1849-50 

1848-49 

1847-48 

1846-47 

1845-46 

1844-45 

1843-44 

1842-43 

1841-43 

1840-41 

1839-40 

1838-39 

30 
31 
37 
30 
40 
25 
39 
33 
35 
32 
33 
34 
38 

38 
30 
33 
37 
33 
45 
30 
40 
29 
31 
43 
41 
36 

25 
41 
33 
36 
43 
30 
46 
31 
44 
39 
33 
55 
33 

73 

93 

91 

103 

115 

100 

105 

93 

98 

103 

99 

120 

86 

Averages. 

37.4 

33.4 

37.4 

98.2 

MR.  Mccook's  brief.  65 

The  third  "  good  and  valuable  consideration "  received 
by  Union  Seminary  under  this  contract,  according  to  Mr. 
McCook,  consists  in  the  financial  aid  granted  each  year  to 
the  students  from  the  Board  of  Education  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church.  How  so  ?  The  students  of  Union  Seminary 
had  received  financial  aid  every  year  from  the  'New  School 
Committee  of  Education.  After  1870  they  received  simi- 
lar aid  from  the  Board  of  Education  of  the  reunited 
Church.  Where  is  the  difference?  Is  a  dollar  coming  by 
way  of  Philadelphia  a  better  dollar  than  used  to  come  from 
the  treasury  of  the  New  School  Committee  of  Education 
right  here  in  'New  York  ?  Is  there  more  silver  or  more 
gold  in  it?  is  it  stamped  with  a  stronger  assurance  of 
orthodoxy  ? 

The  fourth  and  last  "  good  and  valuable  consideration," 
binding  Union  Seminary  fast  to  its  contract,  consists  in 
"  large  additions  to  its  endowments  and  funds  such  as  those 
received  from  James  Brown,  Esq.,  Gov.  Morgan,  and 
others  which  have  been  asked  for  and  received  since  18T0 
upon  the  guaranty  of  its  orthodoxy  through  its  relation  to 
the  General  Assembly  under  this  contract  and  the  provi- 
sions of  its  Constitution." 

I  observe  in  passing  that  the  "  Constitution,"  containing 
these  important  provisions,  is  here  referred  to  with  great 
respect  and  printed  with  a  big  C ;  while  on  page  2  it  is 
twice  printed  with  a  little  c  and  is  spoken  of  as  "  the  con- 
stitution so-called  J'  And  on  page  13  the  little  c  comes 
back  again  four  times  over.  In  replying  to  Mr.  Henry 
Day's  question,  "What  authority  had  the  board  of  1870 
to  bind  the  board  of  1891,  and  take  from  them  their  cor- 
porate and  constitutional  powers  ? "  Mr.  McCook's  brief 
goes  on  to  say :  "  Such  language  might  be  proper  if  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  were  in  question,  but  to 
speak  of  the  corporation's  constitution  as  conferring  con- 


66  UNION   SEMINARY   AND   THE   ASSEMBLY. 

stitutional  powers  is  plainly  misleading."  Why  should  the 
constitution  of  Union  Seminary,  which  its  founders  in- 
tended as  the  enduring  basis  and  organic  law  of  its  existence 
— full  of  perennial  life,  growth,  and  blessing — be  called, 
slightingly,  "  the  cm^poratiorC s  constitution  "  ? 

But  to  return  to  the  fourth  ''  good  and  valuable  consid- 
eration," namely,  "  large  additions  to  its  endowments  and 
funds,  such  as  those  received  from  James  Brown,  Esq.,  Gov. 
Morgan,  and  others  upon  the  guaranty  of  its  orthodoxy." 
Of  course,  I  do  not  pretend  to  say  that  none  of  the  benefac- 
tors of  the  Seminary  were  more  or  less  influenced  by  their 
confidence  in  the  orthodoxy  of  the  institution,  as  guaran- 
teed by  its  relations  to  the  General  Assembly.  I  do  not 
know.  Men  are  usually  led  by  a  variety  of  motives  to 
give  away  their  money,  especially  when  they  do  it  on  a 
large  scale.  Of  one  of  the  benefactors  named,  Gov.  Mor- 
gan, I  feel  entitled  to  speak  with  some  confidence.  Nearly 
forty  years  ago  I  preached  a  sermon  to  my  people  on 
the  position,  character,  and  claims  of  Union  Theological 
Seminary,  urging  its  immediate  endowment.  The  sermon 
made  no  allusion  to  the  General  Assembly,  or  to  what  Mr. 
McCook  seems  to  understand  by  Presbyterian  orthodoxy ; 
but  it  did  set  forth  what  I  held,  and  still  hold,  to  be  the 
chief  purpose  and  function  of  a  great  metropolitan  institu- 
tion of  Christian  theology  and  learning,  like  Union  Semi- 
nary. Thirty  years  later  Gov.  Morgan  was  kind  enough  to 
write  to  me  respecting  my  sermon :  "  There  is  not  an  ex- 
pression in  it  which  I  do  not  approve.  I  thank  you  from 
the  bottom  of  my  heart  for  presenting  this  vastly  important 
subject  in  its  true  light."  Here  follow  a  few  passages 
from  the  sermon  which  met  his  approval : 

The  character  of  Union  Seminary  is  eminently  catholic  in 
the  true  sense  of  the  word  ;  it  is  at  once  Hberal  and  conserv- 
ative.    There  is  nothing  that  I  am  aware  of  in  its  history, 


MR.  Mccook's  brief.  67 

nothing  in  its  associations,  nothing  in  its  general  policy,  noth- 
ing in  its  temper,  which  should  make  this  institution  cleave 
inordinately  to  the  past  or  to  the  future ;  which  should 
render  it  unstable  in  the  ways  of  old  truth,  or  unwilling  to 
greet  new  truth  with  a  friendly  welcome  ;  nothing  which 
commits  it  to  any  party  or  prevents  its  cordial  relations  with 
all  parties  that  love  the  Gospel  and  Christian  union.  It 
stands  in  special  connection  with  our  own  branch  of  the 
great  Presbyterian  family  ;  but  it  numbers  on  its  board  of  di- 
rectors, and  among  its  warmest  friends,  influential  members 
of  the  other  branch  ;  while  it  seeks  its  professors  and  attracts 
its  students  as  readily  from  the  old  Puritan  body  of  New 
England,  as  if  its  predilections  were  all  Congregational.  If 
you  will  have  an  institution  occupying  as  catholic  a  ground  as 
the  distracted  state  of  the  Church  in  our  day  seems  to  per- 
mit, I  do  not  know  how  you  can  well  come  nearer  to  such  a 
plan  than  have  the  founders  of  Union  Seminary.  Its  main 
advantages  are  as  accessible  and  useful  to  a  Baptist,  a 
Methodist,  an  Episcopalian,  or  a  Congregationahst,  as  to  a 
Presbyterian  ;  and  students  of  all  these  and  of  other  de- 
nominations have  availed  themselves  of  them.  Let  it  be 
understood  that  in  what  I  have  said,  or  may  say,  I  cast  no 
reflection  upon  any  other  seminary.  AH  honor  to  Princeton, 
and  Lane,  and  Auburn,  and  Andover,  and  Bangor,  and  New 
Haven,  and  others  of  whatever  name,  that  are  doing  the 
Master's  work ! 

As  the  seat,  too,  of  a  liberal  and  profound  theological 
culture  New  York  ought  to  stand  foremost  in  the  land.  She 
ought  for  her  own  sake.  There  is  perhaps  no  other  power, 
after  the  Word  preached,  which  would  do  more  to  preserve 
her  Christian  influence,  wealth,  and  enterprise  from  falling 
a  prey  to  the  show,  self-aggrandizement,  and  other  vices 
incident  to  the  predominance  of  a  commercial  spirit.  She 
ought  for  the  sake  of  our  country  and  the  world.  Let  a 
wise,  tolerant,  Christian  theology  flourish  here,  and  it  would 
diffuse  a  beneficent  radiance  over  the  land,  and  even  among 


68  UNION   SEMINAEY   AND   THE  ASSEMBLY. 

pagan  nations.  The  position,  then,  of  the  Union  Seminary  is 
unsurpassed  both  for  the  training  of  ministers  and  for  the 
cultivation  of  sacred  learning.  For  this  reason  its  founders 
planted  it  in  the  city  of  New  York. 

I  have  the  clearest  conviction  that  the  Union  Seminary  is 
capable  of  doing  a  gi'eat  work  for  Christ  and  the  Church. 
It  has  already  done  much.  Not  a  few  of  the  most  useful 
ministers  in  the  land,  not  a  few  of  our  best  missionaries  to  the 
heathen,  are  among  its  alumni.  Already,  too,  has  it  made 
invaluable  contributions  to  the  higher  theological  Hterature 
of  the  age.  But  I  trust  it  has  still  a  nobler  career  in  the 
future.  I  look  forward  to  the  time  when  young  men  of 
piety  and  generous  endowments  shall  flock  to  it  in  thousands 
from  aU  quarters  of  the  Eepublic  ;  from  California  and  Ore- 
gon, and  from  the  islands  of  the  sea,  even  ;  when  its  library 
shall  be  the  resort  of  Christian  scholars  from  neighboring 
towns  and  cities  ;  when  its  professorships  shall  be  multiplied 
so  as  to  embrace  one  for  each  great  branch  of  sacred  lore  ; 
when  it  shall  be  the  pride  and  glory  of  our  churches  and  its 
treasury  be  continually  enriched  by  the  princely  donations 
of  the  living  and  the  dying  ;  when,  in  a  word,  it  shall  be 
such  a  nursery  of  men  of  God  and  such  a  citadel  of  holy 
faith  as  the  voice  of  Providence  commands  us  to  build  up  in 
this  emporium  of  the  New  World. 

Gov.  Morgan's  letter  to  me  closed  thus : 

I  have  always  thought,  and  I  still  think,  that  New  Yorkers, 
of  all  others,  ought  to  do  something  for  a  good  institution, 
like  Union  Seminary,  in  their  own  city  and  not  send  all  their 
money  to  Princeton.  I  am  convinced  now  more  than  ever 
that  my  judgment  in  this  respect  has  not  been  at  fault. 

In  his  letter  to  Dr.  Adams  offering  to  establish  a  fund  of 
one  hundred  thousand  dollars  for  the  erection  of  a  new 
library  building  and  for  the  improvement,  increase,  and 
support  of  the  library,  Gov.  Morgan  begins  by  saying :  "  I 


MR.  McCOOK'S  beief.  69 

desire  to  show  my  appreciation  of  the  usefulness  of  tlie 
Union  Theological  Seminary,  and  to  aid  in  the  great  work 
it  is  now  doing  for  the  country"  No  mention  is  made  of 
Presbyterian  orthodoxy  as  fixed  by  the  "  standard  of  the 
General  Assembly."  Nor  do  I  believe  any  such  thought 
passed  through  the  mind  of  this  strong  man,  either  at  that 
time,  or,  later,  when  he  added  to  his  first  gift  two  hundred 
thousand  dollars  more. 

Not  long  before  his  death,  while  busying  himself  with 
•'Morgan  Hall,"  his  generous  gift  to  Williams  College,  he 
said  one  day  to  a  friend  of  mine :  "  I  see  now  clearly  that 
it  has  been  the  greatest  mistake  of  my  life  that  I  have  not 
engaged  in  this  kind  of  thing  before.  It  is  one  of  the 
greatest  pleasures  I  have  ever  experienced.  And  what  a 
host  of  opportunities  I  have  lost !  If  men  of  means  could 
only  realize  what  gratification  is  to  be  derived  in  this  way, 
worthy  and  deserving  objects  would  be  fairly  besieged  with 
clamorous  donors." 

Mr.  McCook,  ten  pages  later,  recurs,  almost  pathetically, 
to  the  distressing  effect  that  must  follow  any  other  position 
than  the  one  maintained  by  himself :  "  It  would  work  an 
irreparable  wrong  upon  those  donors,  such  as  James  Brown, 
Esq.,  Governor  Morgan,  Russell  Sage,  Esq.,  Daniel  B. 
Fayerweather,  Esq.,  and  others,  who  have  contributed  so 
largely  to  the  endowment  of  Union  Seminary  upon  the 
faith  of  this  arrangement  with  the  General  Assembly  and 
the  orthodoxy  of  the  seminary,  which  was  intended  to  be 
secured  thereby."  All  the  benefactors  named  but  one 
have  passed  far  beyond  the  reach  of  such  "  irreparable 
wrong,"  Russell  Sage,  Esq.,  alone  surviving.  "VYby  Mr. 
McCook  selects  this  gentleman  in  particular  from  among  a 
score  or  more  of  five-thousand-doUar  contributors  to  the 
funds  of  Union  Seminary  as  the  special  object  of  his  sym- 
pathy, I  do  not  know.     But  I  marvel  a  little  that,  in  his 


70  UNION   SEMINARY   AND   THE  ASSEMBLY. 

eagerness  to  have  Dr.  Briggs'  transfer  to  the  chair  of  Bib- 
lical Theology  vetoed,  he  shows  no  touch  of  sympathy  for 
Charles  Butler,  now  in  his  ninetieth  year,  the  revered 
president,  patriarch,  and  only  surviving  founder  of  Union 
Seminary,  whose  gift  of  one  hundred  thousand  dollars  en- 
dowed the  chair,  whose  services  to  the  institution  cannot  be 
valued  with  pure  gold,  and  whose  deliberate  choice,  right 
judgment,  and  Christian  wisdom  would  be  stamped  by  such 
veto  with  the  stigma  of  disapproval  on  the  part  of  the  high- 
est judicatory  of  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

I  have  time  barely  to  cull  a  few  more  samples  of  the 
ecclesiastical  wisdom,  which  marks  this  extraordinary  brief : 

"  The  SOLE  OBJECT  of  Union  Theological  Seminary  is  to 
uphold  and  teach  the  Presbyterian  standards  "  (p.  15). 

"  Upon  questions  of  orthodoxy  the  directors,  individually 
and  as  a  Presbyterian  body,  are  subject  to  the  General  As- 
semhly  "  (p.  16). 

"The  Assembly  merely  sets  a  standard  of  orthodoxy, 
and  the  corporation,  wishing  to  he  orthodox,  agree  to  ap- 
point no  agent  of  a  certain  class  who  does  not  come  up  to 
«z!"(p.  18). 

"  The  standard  of  orthodoxy  for  the  seminary,  and  for  all 
Presbyterians  and  Presbyterian  institutions,  must  be  set  by 
the  General  Assembly.  What  is  more  proper,  therefore, 
than  a  contract  providing  that  all  appointees  to  the  high 
and  responsible  oflBce  of  a  professor  in  such  a  seminary 
shall  be  measured  by  this  standard  ? "  (p.  1 7). 

Surely,  if  these  sayings  are  true,  things  are  sadly  topsy- 
turvy both  in  Union  Seminary  and  in  the  Presbyterian 
Church. 

{f).  The  Standing  Committee  on  Theological  Seminaries : 
its  report,  and  the  action  of  the  Assembly . 

The  one  hundred  and  third  General  Assembly  of  the 


REPORT   OF  THE   COMMITTEE   ON   SEMINARIES.     71 

Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  met 
at  Detroit,  Michigan,  in  the  Fort  street  Presbyterian 
Church,  of  which  the  Rev.  Dr.  Wallace  Ratcliffe  is  pastor, 
on  May  21, 1891.  The  Eev.  Dr.  William  Henry  Green,  the 
distinguished  professor  of  Oriental  and  Old  Testament  Lit- 
erature at  Princeton,  was  chosen  moderator.  Dr.  Green  is 
held  in  the  highest  esteem  and  affection,  all  over  the 
land,  as  a  veteran  in  the  service  of  Christian  scholarship. 
Nothing  could  have  been  more  fitting  than  his  unanimous 
election.  The  organization  of  the  Assembly  is  thus  de- 
scribed by  the  correspondent  of  the  Kew  York  Trihuiu^ 
under  date  of  May  22 : 

This  is  pre-eminently  a  conservative  Assembly  ;  more,  it 
is  a  Princeton  Assembly.  The  moderator  is  a  Princeton 
man,  the  senior  professor  in  that  seminary  ;  the  stated  clerk 
is  a  Princeton  man,  having  been  for  a  long  time  librarian  of 
that  institution  ;  the  chairman  of  the  Standing  Committee 
on  Theological  Seminaries,  Dr.  Patton,  is  president  of  Prince- 
ton College,  and  it  is  to  this  committee  that  the  report  of 
Union  Seminary  is  to  be  submitted.  Friends  and  opponents 
of  Dr.  Briggs  are  already  forming  their  opinions  as  to  what 
action  this  committee  will  report  in  regard  to  the  New  York 
professor. 

Dr.  Green  announced  the  standing  committees  this  morn- 
ing. There  is  no  special  significance  in  the  appointments, 
except  in  that  of  the  Committee  on  Theological  Seminaries. 
This  is  composed  as  foUows  :  Ministers — Francis  L.  Patton, 
Princeton  ;  WiUiam  McKibbin,  Cincinnati ;  John  Lapsley, 
Danville  ;  S.  Bowden,  Rochester ;  J.  D.  Hewitt,  Emporia  ; 
J.  K.  Wright,  Florida ;  T.  R.  Buber,  Philadelphia ;  and 
M.  A.  Bronson,  Detroit.  Elders— S.  M.  Breckinridge,  St. 
Louis;  P.  McDavitt,  Chicago;  E.  W.  C.  Humphrey,  Louisville; 
R.  C.  Totten,  Pittsbiirgh  ;  P.  Doremus,  Montclair,  N.  J.  ;  M. 
J.  Frick,  Fort  Dodge  ;  R.  McConnaughy,  Nebraska  City.  It 
was  said  by  those  professing  to  know  that  this  was  a  decid- 


72  UNION   SEMINARY   AND   THE   ASSEMBLY. 

edly  anti-Briggs  committee,  but  Dr.  Patton,  its  chairman, 
assured  the  Tribune  correspondent  that  he  did  not  know  how 
the  members  stood  on  any  special  question  that  might  come  be- 
fore them.  They  had  apparently  been  chosen  by  Dr.  Green 
because  he  knew  their  fitness  for  the  work  before  them. 

What  ground  there  was,  if  any,  for  the  charge,  made  at 
Detroit,  that  the  moderator  allowed  himself  to  be  unduly 
influenced  in  order  to  make  the  Standing  Committee  on 
Theological  Seminaries  a  decidedly  "  anti-Briggs  "  commit- 
tee, I  know  not.  Of  the  Standing  Committee  on  Theolog- 
ical Seminaries,  I  shall  refer  chiefly  to  the  chairman.  Had 
Dr.  Patton,  in  view  of  the  peculiarly  delicate  circumstances 
of  the  case,  peremptorilj^  declined  the  appointment,  or,  at 
the  least,  had  he  followed  the  example  of  Dr.  Adams  at 
Philadelphia  in  18 70,  and  requested  the  Assembly,  as  a 
personal  favor,  to  excuse  him  from  serving,  he  would  have 
stood  higher  than  he  does  to-day  in  the  respect  of  the 
friends  of  Union  Seminary,  and,  I  cannot  but  think,  in  that 
also  of  the  Christian  scholarship  of  the  country. 

On  May  27th  Dr.  Patton  read  the  report  of  the  commit- 
tee, which  was  accepted  and  ordered  to  be  printed.  The 
report  opened  with  an  enumeration  of  sixty-three  Presby- 
teries which  had  overtured  the  General  Assembly  respect- 
ing tlie  recent  utterances  of  Dr.  Briggs.  It  also  refers  to 
the  report  of  the  directors  of  the  Union  Theological  Semi- 
nary to  the  General  Assembly  respecting  the  transfer  of 
Dr.  Briggs  to  the  chair  of  Biblical  Theology.  The  report 
then  proceeds  thus : 

On  the  20th  of  January,  1891,  Dr.  Briggs  delivered  an  in- 
augural address  on  the  authority  of  the  Holy  Scriptures 
which  has  been  the  subject  of  some  criticism,  and  which  is 
the  occasion  of  the  recommendations  which  your  committee 
feel  constrained  to  make  to  the  Assembly.  In  making  these 
recommendations,  your  committee  feel  that  they  are  acting 


EEPORT   OF  THE   COMMITTEE   ON   SEMINARIES.     73 

in  the  discbarge  of  a  delicate  duty.  The  matter  with  which 
they  have  been  called  to  deal  bears  in  a  very  important  way 
upon  the  purity  and  peace  of  our  Church.  The  interest  of 
the  Union  Theological  Seminary  should  be  most  carefully 
considered,  and  gi-eat  respect  should  be  had  for  the  judgment 
of  those  who,  as  directors  and  as  members  of  its  faculty,  are 
administering  its  affairs.  The  committee  feel,  moreover,  that 
while  the  Assembly  has  not  been  officially  informed,  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York  has  taken  steps  that  look  toward  a 
prosecution  of  Dr.  Briggs  on  the  charge  of  heresy  ;  that 
well-known  facts  should  be  so  far  recognized  as  to  secure 
from  the  Assembly  the  protection  of  the  good  name  of  Dr. 
Briggs  in  the  discussion  of  the  question  that  will  come  be- 
fore the  Assembly,  through  this  report,  and  also  to  prevent 
any  expression  of  opinion  on  the  f)art  of  this  Assembly  that 
coiild  be  justly  regarded  as  prejudgment  of  the  case  that  will 
soon,  as  it  now  appears,  assume  the  form  of  a  judicial  pro- 
cess in  the  Presbytery  of  New  York.  It  cannot  be  too  care- 
fully observed  that  the  question  before  this  Assembly  is  not 
whether  Dr.  Briggs,  as  a  Presbyterian  minister,  has  so  far 
contravened  the  teaching  of  the  Westminster  Confession  of 
Faith  as  to  have  made  himself  liable  to  a  judicial  censure,  but 
whether,  in  view  of  the  utterances  contained  in  the  inaugural 
address,  already  referred  to,  and  the  disturbing  effect  which 
they  have  produced  throughout  the  Church,  the  election  of 
Dr.  Briggs  to  the  chair  of  BibHcal  Theology  in  Union  Theo- 
logical Seminary  should  be  disapproved.  Your  committee 
have  examined  the  law  of  the  Church  regarding  the  relation 
of  the  General  Assembly  to  the  theological  seminaries  under 
its  care.  The  relation  of  the  Assembly  to  the  Union  Theo- 
logical Seminary,  so  far  as  the  appointment  of  professors  is 
concerned,  is  embodied  in  the  following  statement  taken  from 
page  390  of  the  New  Digest. 

Having  cited  the  statement  referred  to,  the  report  con- 
tinues, as  follows : 


74  UNION   SEMINARY   AND   THE  ASSEMBLY. 

It  appears,  then,  that,  according  to  the  items  of  the  com- 
pact quoted  above,  the  directors  of  the  Union  Theological 
Seminary  have  conceded  to  the  Assembly  the  right  to  veto 
the  appointment  of  professors,  and  that  an  election  is  com- 
plete unless  vetoed  by  the  next  Assembly  following  the  elec- 
tion. Your  committee  would  have  been  disposed  to  recom- 
mend that  the  report  of  the  directors  of  Union  Theological 
Seminary  to  this  Assembly,  so  far  as  it  referred  to  the  trans- 
fer of  Dr.  Briggs  to  the  chair  of  Biblical  Theology,  be  re- 
ferred to  the  next  Assembly,  if  such  a  disposition  of  the  matter 
had  been  possible  ;  but  the  Assembly  has  clearly  no  power 
to  postpone  action.  The  control  of  the  Chiu'ch  over  the 
election  of  Dr.  Briggs  ceases  with  the  dissolution  of  this 
present  Assembly.  Your  committee  are  constrained,  there- 
fore, to  say  that  in  their  judgment  it  is  the  duty  of  the  As- 
sembly to  disapprove  of  the  appointment  of  Dr.  Briggs  to 
the  Edward  Robinson  chair  of  Biblical  Theology  in  Union 
Theological  Seminary. 

Your  committee  desire  to  say,  moreover,  that  while  they 
are  cleai-  in  their  judgment  that  the  Assembly  has  the  right 
to  veto  the  appointment  of  Dr.  Briggs  to  the  chair  of  Biblical 
Theology,  it  is  possible  to  impose  a  meaning  upon  the  ap- 
parently unambiguous  phraseology  of  the  compact  between 
the  General  Assembly  and  the  directors  of  the  Union  Theo- 
logical Seminary,  that  would  lead  to  a  different  conclusion. 
Fairness  also  requires  us  to  say  that  the  Assembly  is  one  of 
the  parties  of  the  compact  that  it  is  caUed  upon  to  construe. 
While  your  committee  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  compact 
in  question  did  not  contemplate  the  distinction  between  the 
election  of  a  person  to  be  a  professor  and  the  appointment 
of  one  already  a  professor  to  the  work  of  a  certain  depart- 
ment of  instruction,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  such  a  distinc- 
tion exists  ;  the  one  act  conferring  status,  the  other  only  as- 
signing duties.  The  seemingly  irregular  course  of  the 
directors  of  the  Union  Theological  Seminary,  whereby  Dr 
Briggs  was  inducted  into  oflCc-!  before  the  Assembly  had 


EEPORT   OF  THE   COMMITTEE   ON   SEMINARIES.     75 

been  advised  of  his  appointment,  is  doubtless  to  be  attributed 
to  their  mode  of  construing  their  contract  with  the  General 
Assembly.  While  your  committee  are  sure  that  the  Assem- 
bly will  not,  and  should  not,  admit  its  right  of  disapproval  is 
restricted  to  the  original  election  of  a  person  to  a  professor- 
ship of  Biblical  Theology  in  that  Seminarj^  and  while  they 
are  of  the  opinion  that,  acting  according  to  the  liglit  it  now 
has,  the  Assembly  cannot  but  disapprove  of  the  appointment 
of  Dr.  Briggs  to  the  professorship  of  Biblical  Theology  in 
that  Seminary,  they  are  nevertheless  of  the  opinion  that,  in 
the  interests  of  the  mutual  relations  of  confidence  and  cordial 
respect  subsisting  between  the  Union  Theological  Seminary 
and  the  General  Assembly,  it  would  be  eminently  proper  for 
the  Assembly  to  appoint  a  committee  to  confer  with  the 
directors  of  the  Union  Theological  Seminary  in  regard  to 
the  relations  of  said  Seminary  to  the  General  Assembly,  and 
to  report  to  the  next  General  Assembly.  The  committee, 
therefore,  recommend  the  adoption  of  the  following  resolu- 
tions : 

I.  Resolved,  That  in  the  exercise  of  its  right  to  veto  the  ap- 
pointment of  professors  in  Union  Theological  Seminary,  the 
General  Assembly  hereby  disapproves  of  the  appointment  of 
the  Kev.  Chas.  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  to  the  Edward  Robinson  pro- 
fessorship of  Biblical  Theology  in  that  Seminary,  by  transfer 
from  another  chair  in  said  Seminary, 

n.  Resolved,  That  a  committee,  consisting  of  eight  ministers 
and  seven  ruling  elders,  be  appointed  by  the  General  Assembly 
to  confer  with  the  directors  of  Union  Theological  Seminary  in 
regard  to  the  relations  of  said  Seminary  to  the  General  As- 
sembly, and  to  report  to  the  next  General  Assembly. 

Before  considering  the  report  of  the  committee  I  wish  to 
call  attention  to  the  statement  of  the  chairman  on  reading 
it. 

I  would  like  to  say  that  this  committee  have  felt  the  re- 
sponsibility that  has  been  placed  upon  them  ;  that  they  have 


76  UNION   SEMINAEY   AND   THE  ASSEMBLY. 

not  felt  at  liberty  to  divide  this  responsibility  mtb  any  one  ; 
that  they  have  studiously  avoided  consulting  with  any  one 
who  may  have  been  supposed  to  have  preconceived  opinions 
on  either  side  of  the  question  ;  and  having  reached  our  con- 
clusions, we  present  them  to  the  Assembly  for  such  action  as 
the  Assembly  in  its  wisdom  may  see  fit  to  take. 

Is  this  not  equivalent  to  saying  that  they  deliberately 
refused  to  seek,  or  to  receive,  any  light  from  anybody  in 
reference  to  the  momentous  question  which  they  were  ap- 
pointed to  consider  ?  If  so,  it  is  a  confession  that,  in  my 
opinion,  reflects  anything  but  credit  upon  the  committee. 
AVere  these  fifteen  commissioners  already  omniscient  when 
they  shut  themselves  up  in  committee  ?  Would  their  minds 
henceforth  of  necessity  be  biased,  or  misled,  by  any  addition 
to  tlieir  knowledge  touching  the  Union  Seminary  and  Dr. 
Briggs  ?  I  say  nothing  about  the  other  "  side  ";  but  so  far  as  the 
Union  Seminary  was  concerned,  it  had  good  right  to  be  heard 
before  that  committee,  if  it  desired  or  cared  to  do  so.  Three 
of  its  directors  were  commissioners  to  the  Assembly,  Drs. 
Parkhurst,  Dickey,  and  White.  Of  Dr.  Parkhurst  I  can- 
not speak.  Dr.  Dickey  has  repeatedly  stated  that  he  offered, 
as  a  member  of  the  Union  board  of  directors,  to  give  the 
committee  any  information  in  his  power;  not  "precon- 
ceived opinions,"  but  simple  information.  Dr.  White  made 
the  same  offer,  both  orally  and  in  writing,  and  he  was  as- 
sured by  Dr.  Patton  that  the  committee  would  be  glad  to 
hear  him.  He  fully  expected  to  be  heard :  but  neither 
he  nor  Dr.  Dickey  were  ever  sent  for  or  asked  to  appear. 
The  committee  "  studiously  avoided  "  consulting  with  him. 

And,  pray,  who  is  Erskine  N.  White,  that  he  should  be 
treated  in  that  manner  ?  He  is,  as  his  honored  father  was 
before  him,  one  of  the  most  candid,  judicious,  and  clear- 
sighted, as  he  is  also  one  of  the  best,  men  in  the 
Presbyterian   Church.      He   was   sent  to    the    Assembly 


REPORT   OF  THE   COMMITTEE   OJf   SEMINARIES.     77 

because  the  whole  Presbytery  of  New  York  knew  him 
to  be  such  a  mau.  He  insisted  upon  dechning  the 
appointment,  moved  thereto  in  part  no  doubt  by  reason 
of  his  exacting  duties  as  secretary  of  the  Assembly's 
Board  of  Church  Erection,  and  partly,  it  may  be,  by  reason 
of  the  somewhat  delicate  position  in  which  the  case  of  Dr. 
Briggs  might  place  him,  should  he  take  part  in  its  discus- 
sion. Hearing  of  his  purpose,  I  joined  Dr.  Hastings  in  urg- 
ing him  not  to  decline.  "  You  need  take  no  part  in  the  dis- 
cussion of  Dr.  Briggs'  case,"  we  said  to  him,  "  but  you  know 
all  about  our  Seminary  affairs.  You  know  the  mind  and 
temper  of  the  board ;  you  have  the  confidence  of  the  whole 
Church.  You  can  explain  things;  you  can  give  needed 
information.  Go,  by  all  means."  He  yielded,  and  when  he 
got  to  Detroit  found  his  information  "  studiously  avoided." 
Was  it  because,  forsooth,  he  "  might  be  supposed  to  have 
preconceived  opinions  "  ?  Surely,  this  is  not  the  spirit  of 
fairness  that  ought  to  rule  a  leading  committee  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  when  deahng 
with  a  question  that  involves  the  professional  standing  and 
character  of  one  of  her  most  distinguished  ministers ! 

But  this  slight  put  upon  the  three  directors  of  Union 
Seminary,  who  were  commissioners  to  the  Assembly, 
was  only  a  prelude  to  a  far  greater  slight  put  upon  the 
Seminary  itself.  Had  Union  Seminary  belonged  to  the 
General  Assembly  and  been  subject  to  its  authority  as 
Princeton,  for  example,  was  and  is,  such  treatment  would 
still  have  been  open  to  criticism.  But  Union  Seminary,  as 
we  have  seen,  is  not  subject  to  the  authority  of  the  General 
Assembly.  That  body  is  in  no  sense  its  patron  or  the  foun- 
tain of  any  of  its  powers.  It  stands,  and  has  always  stood, 
upon  its  own  independent  foundation.  The  single  tie  which 
in  1870  by  its  own  free  act  connected  it  with  the  General 
Assembly,  by  its  own  free  act  it  can  sever  at  any  moment 


78  UNION   SEMINAKY   AND   THE  ASSEMBLY. 

"  for  good  and  sufficient  reasons."  It  is  true  that  the  report 
of  the  committee  distinctly  recognizes  the  fact  that  Union 
Seminary  was  a  party  in  the  case  and  had  rights  of  its 
own  as  over  against  the  Assembly.  And  yet  the  report 
recommended  an  ex  ijcurte  decision  of  the  vital  question  at 
issue  without  consulting  in  the  least  Union  Seminary.  The 
consultation  was  to  come  after  the  matter  had  been  practi- 
cally, and  so  far  as  that  Assembly  was  concerned,  irrevoca- 
bly settled. 

The  exposition  of  the  case  in  the  report,  more  fully  given 
in  Dr.  Patton's  speeches  and  in  those  of  other  members  of 
the  committee,  is  remarkable  for  the  manner  in  which  it 
utterly  ignores  the  deliberate  action  and  testimony  of  the 
board  of  directors  of  Union  Seminary,  as  also  the  carefully 
prepared  statement  of  its  Faculty.  These  were  not,  it  is 
true,  officially  made  known  to  the  Assembly.  But  neither 
was  the  action  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  looking  to 
a  judicial  process  in  the  case  of  Dr.  Briggs ;  and  yet  the 
Standing  Committee  on  Theological  Seminaries  kept  that 
action  constantly  in  mind  in  framing  their  report,  and  urged 
the  Assembly  to  do  so  in  considering  it.  Why  was  not  the 
Assembly  informed  in  this  report  of  the  exact  position  taken 
both  by  the  Board  of  directors  and  by  the  Faculty  of  the 
Seminary  ?  Why  was  not  the  Assembly  distinctly  told  that 
the  Board,  by  a  unanimous  vote  and  after  careful  investiga- 
tion, had  virtually  pronounced  the  charges  against  Dr. 
Briggs  unfounded,  and  that  the  Faculty  of  the  institution 
had  done  the  same  thing?  Was  this  solemn  testimony 
also  "  studiously  avoided  "  on  the  ground  that  it  consisted 
of  "  preconceived  opinions  "  ?  * 

*  The  action  of  the  Board  in  establishing  the  new  chair 
and  transferring  Dr.  Briggs  to  it,  Dr.  Frazer's  charge,  the 
resolutions  of  the  Board  of  dii-ectors  sustaining  and  promis- 


REPORT   OF   THE  COMMITTEE   ON   SEMINARIES.     79 

As  to  the  second  recommendation  of  the  committee,  Dr. 
Erskine  pointed  out  its  real  character  in  his  very  sensible 
comment  upon  it.     Here  is  what  he  said : 

It  is  proposed  that  we  appoint  a  comrQittee  and  go  and 
hold  a  conference  with  the  Union  Seminary  directors  in  re- 
gard to  Dr.  Briggs'  relation  to  that  Seminary,  and  to  give 
them  some  advice.  Mr,  Moderator,  what  authority  have  we 
for  that  ?  Where  have  we  any  authority  in  regard  to  Union 
Seminary,  excepting  that  which  is  embraced  in  the  compact 
between  that  Seminary  and  us  in  the  articles  of  agreement 
which  were  adopted  in  the  year  1870  in  the  General  Assem- 
bly at  Philadelphia  ?  And  where  have  we  any  authority  to 
go  to  them  and  advise  with  them,  to  do  anything  outside  of 
the  compact?  None  whatever.  This  proposition  is  a  mis- 
leading proposition.  It  would  have  us  surrender  the  only 
authority  we  have  in  regard  to  the  instructions  which  ai^e 
given  to  our  candidates  for  the  ministry  in  Union  Seminary, 
and  to  assume  an  authority  that  does  not  belong  to  us.  If 
we  do  so,  we  just  allow  ourselves  to  be  misled  and  outwitted. 
The  only  control  as  an  Assembly  that  we  have  over  the 
theological  seminary — I  mean  directly,  except  through  the 
Synod  and  the  Presbytery  where  we  may  reach  ministers  and 
elders — is  embraced  in  that  compact  which  has  been  entered 
into  between  the  General  Assembly  and  our  theological  semi- 
naries, and  the  power  that  we  have  is  the  power  of  disap- 
proval in  regard  to  a  professor  that  has  been  elected  ;  and  if 
you  surrender  that  power,  you  surrender  all  the  controlhng 
power  that  you  have  in  regard  to  the  instructions  that  are 
given  in  these  seminaries.  Suppose  you  adopt  this  substi- 
tute ;  suppose  you  appoint  your  most  prominent,  most  influ- 
ential and  wisest  representatives.  You  go  there  and  make 
your  propositions.     "Why,  they  will  receive  you  very  cordially 


iug  to  stand  by  Dr.  Briggs,  and  also  the  statement  of  the 
Faculty,  will  all  be  found  in  the  Appendix. 


80  UNION   SEMINARY   AND   THE   ASSEMBLY. 

and  politely,  and  say  :  "  Gentlemen,  we  will  take  this  into 
consideration  ;  we  will  take  time  to  consider  this.  We  are 
obliged  to  you  ;  we  shall  treat  it  with  great  respect  and  great 
courtesy."  And  they  will  take  it  into  consideration,  and  what 
will  be  the  result?  You  can  all  anticipate  it.  The  majority 
of  the  directors  in  that  theological  seminary  have  sat  upon 
this  question  again  and  again.  There  is  a  minority  in  that 
board  with  whom  you  might  deal  if  you  had  the  power,  and 
they  had  the  power  ;  but  the  majority  of  that  board  of  direct- 
ors have  acted  upon  this,  and  they  have  expressed  their  ap- 
proval and  their  confidence  in  the  views  held  by  the  person 
in  question.  And  so  if  we  were  to  go  into  this  arrangement 
it  would  be  vetoing  the  great  issue.  It  would  be  surrender- 
ing the  power  that  we  have,  and  it  would  be  putting  you  in 
a  position  just  to  be  treated  with  simple  courtesy  by  that 
board.  You  have  no  authority  over  them,  and  I  don't  know 
that  they  have  any  authority  to  carry  out  the  proposition 
that  is  made. 

Dr.  Erskine  was  heard  by  the  Assembly  with  not  a  little 
impatience,  but  this  part  of  his  speech,  at  least,  seems  to 
me  to  show  that  he  understood  the  subject  far  better  than 
some  of  his  more  eloquent  brethren.  His  common-sense 
view  of  the  relations  of  the  Assembly  to  the  directors  of 
the  Union  Seminary  may  very  well  be  compared  with  that 
expressed,  or  implied,  by  Dr.  Patton,  for  example,  in  the 
following  passages : 

We  have  recognized  that  as  a  judge  we  are  bound  to  con- 
strue, and  we  have  recognized  that  as  a  party  Union  Semi- 
nary claim  that  their  rights  have  been  infringed  by  our  con- 
struction, and  if  they  see  fit  they  can  take  us  into  the  civil 
courts  for  a  judicial  and  authoritative  interpretation  of  this 

compact Now  we  understand  that  you  intend  to  take 

us  into  the  courts.  Well,  brethren,  is  that  the  best  course  to 
pursue  ?  Can't  we  talk  the  matter  over  ?  It  is  possible,  you 
know,  that  you  may  be  wrong.     Is  it  not  possible,  therefore, 


REPORT   OF  THE   COMMITTEE   ON   SEMINARIES.     81 

that  they  may  come  arouud?  You  might  elect  a  man  as 
IDi'ofessor  of  Elocution,  and  then  transfer  him  to  the  chair  of 
Theology.  Isn't  it  possible  that  the  directors  will  feel  that 
the  Assembly  was  right,  after  all  ?  Why,  certainly.  On  the 
other  hand,  isn't  it  possible  that  your  committee  would 
change  their  view,  and  that  they  would  recommend  the  next 
Assembly  to  reverse  the  judgment  of  this  Assembly  ?  Isn't 
that  possible  ?  Why,  of  course  it  is  possible  ;  all  things  are 
possible.  [Laughter  and  applause.]  That  would  be  a  rep- 
resentative committee — eight  ministers  and  seven  elders, 
composed  of  the  best  men,  the  wisest  lawyers,  and  to  such  a 
committee  would  we  intrust  this  duty.  Isn't  it  possible  that 
both  parties,  in  their  inability  to  change  their  views,  may 
say  :  "  Well,  we  do  not  want  to  go  to  the  courts.  We  re- 
member what  Paul  said  about  prosecuting  these  matters 
before  the  heathen  court."  But  cannot  the  General  Assem- 
bly on  the  report  of  this  committee  and  the  board  of  direct- 
ors of  Union  Seminary  agree  to  refer  the  constitutional  in- 
terpretation of  this  old  compact,  which  is  Hable  to  come  up 
and  be  a  soui-ce  of  disturbance  in  jeaxs  to  come — refer  it, 
not  to  this  committee,  not  to  the  board  of  directors  of  Union 
Seminary,  but  to  some  Christian  men  outside,  known  for 
their  wisdom,  praised  for  their  fairness,  and  saying  on  our 
part  as  a  General  Assembly,  while  they  say  on  their  part  as 
a  board  of  directors,  "  Dear  brethren,  we  are  perfectly  \fill- 
ing  to  let  any  fair-minded  set  of  men  arbitrate  this  ques- 
tion "  ?     These  are  the  possibilities  in  the  case.* 

The  debate  upon  the  report  opened  on  May  28th,  and  on 
May  29th,  late  in  the  afternoon,  the  vote  was  taken.  It  re- 
sulted in  the  adoption  of  the  resolutions  of  the  committee 

*  These  quotations,  as  all  others,  from  the  speeches,  made 
in  the  Assembly,  are  taken  from  the  revised  reports  of  the 
N.  Y.  Tribune,  printed  in  pamphlet  form  under  the  title, 
The  Presbyterian  Faith. 


82  UNION   SEMINAEY   AND   THE   ASSEMBLY. 

by  the  overwhelming  majority  of  4i7  to  60.  Ou  the  after- 
noon of  May  2Sth  Judge  Breckinridge,  a  commissioner  from 
St.  Louis,  at  the  moment  of  closing  a  speech  in  favor  of 
the  report,  dropped  dead  in  the  presence  of  the  whole  As- 
sembly. This  startling  incident,  following  so  quickly  upon 
the  almost  equally  sudden  death  of  the  Rev.  Henry  J.  Van 
Dyke,  D.D.,  professor-elect  to  the  chair  of  Systematic  The- 
ology in  Union  Seminary — a  noble  man  and  one  of  the 
foremost  leaders  in  the  Presbyterian  Church — tended  nat- 
urally to  deepen  the  serious  feeling  which  already  pervaded 
the  Assembly.  AYhile  a  few  appear  to  have  been  in  a 
different  mood,  the  great  body  of  commissioners,  both 
ministers  and  elders,  were  very  much  impressed  with  the 
gravity  of  the  situation. 

It  is  not  needful  for  my  purpose  to  dwell  long  upon  the 
speeches  that  were  made.  Much  of  the  discussion,  however 
able,  was  yet  quite  irrelevant.  Much  of  it  consisted  in 
what  is  called  beating  about  the  bush.  The  first  and  fun- 
damental point,  namely,  the  question  of  jurisdiction,  was 
hardly  touched  upon  except  in  the  report  of  the  commit- 
tee. With  regard  to  this  question,  the  minority  were 
handicapped  and  tongue-tied  from  the  outset.  Their  case 
was  simply  given  away,  and,  strangely  enough,  by  a  director 
of  Union  Theological  Seminary.* 

*  "  The  technical  distinction,  if  any  exists,  between  the  ap- 
pointment of  a  professor  to  a  newly-founded  chair  and  a 
transfer  from  one  chair  to  another,  need  not  he  discussed,  as  it 
is  stated  by  Dr.  Dickey  that  the  directors  of  Union  Semi- 
nary, at  their  last  meeting  in  May,  unanimously  voted  not  to 
jjlead  this  distinction." — Remarks  by  John  J.  McCook,  p.  9. 
How  Dr.  Dickey's  memory  or  hearing  came  to  be  so  at  fault, 
I  am  not  able  to  say.  His  course  at  Detroit  was  in  a  high 
degree  frank  and  manly,  and  all  his  friends  know  him  to  be 
incapable  of  stating  what  he  did  not  believe  to  be  true.    The 


EEPOKT   OF  THE   COMMITTEE   ON   SEMINARIES.     83 

After  this  the  friends  of  Dr.  Briggs  had  nothing  to  do 
but  to  oppose  the  adoption  of  the  report  as  best  they  could  ; 
either  directly,  or  by  urging  Dr.  Logan's  amendment  or 
Dr.  Worcester's  substitute,  both  of  which  contemplated  the 
postponement  of  jBnal  action  to  the  next  Assembly.  The 
distinction  between  an  original  election  and  a  transfer, 
however,  having  been  waived,  the  advocates  of  a  veto  had 
it  all  their  own  way.  And  their  own  way  consisted  in  two 
things :  first,  to  assert  very  positively  that  Dr.  Briggs  ought 
to  be  vetoed ;  and  second,  that  he  must  be  vetoed  now  or 
never.  The  latter  point  was  urged  with  great  solemnity 
and  most  impressive  reiteration.  ''"We  are  under  obliga- 
tion," said  Mr.  McCook,  "  as  honest  men,  as  Christian  men, 
to  carry  out  in  its  exact  tenns  all  the  provisions  of  that 
compact,  and  we  cannot,  we  dare  not,  postpone  action. 
We  must  act  now  and  before  the  adjournment  of  this  As- 
sembly, or  the  right  to  disapprove  is  lost  forever."  Dr. 
Patton  was  equally  emphatic  as  to  the  "now  or  never," 
giving  as  a  reason  how  he  should  feel  if  threatened  with  .1 
veto  in  the  indefinite  future.     Here  is  what  he  said  : 

The  question  is  whether  we  have  the  right  to  veto.  I  think 
we  have Very  well,  suppose  we  have  that  right,  how 

following  note  is  from  Mr.  E.  M.  Kingsley,  the  recorder  of 
Union  Seminary  : 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Dickey's  memory  was  at  fault  concerning  the  action 
of  the  directors  at  their  meeting  of  May  12th.  At  that  meeting  the 
Executive  Committee  presented  a  report  which  in  substance  deemed 
it  unwise  to  assume  in  advance  that  the  General  Assembly  would  mis- 
conceive the  extent  of  its  prerogative  ;  and  in  any  event  it  was  better 
at  this  time  not  to  raise  an  issue  by  the  sending  up  of  a  resolution 
upon  the  distinction  between  an  "appointment"  and  a  "transfer." 
This  report,  after  discussion,  was  laid  on  the  table,  giving  way  to  a 
motion  which  led  to  the  series  of  questions  submitted  to  and  answered 
by  Professor  Briggs. 


84  UNION   SEMINARY   AND   THE  ASSEMBLY. 

long  does  that  right  last  ?  One  General  Assembly  has  said  that 
it  can  last  only  during  the  Assembly  immediately  following  the 
election  of  the  professor.  Very  well,  I  think  that  is  a  good  rule. 
It  may  seem  a  singular  thing  for  me  to  play  the  role  of  an  ad- 
vocate of  freedom  [laughter],  but  I  am.  I  am  a  professor. 
I  have  the  prejudices  of  my  class,  and  I  tell  you  that,  in  the 
name  of  that  class,  I  will  protest  against  the  right  of  an 
Assembly  to  hold  the  threat  of  a  veto  over  me  for  a  dozen 
years  in  succession.  They  have  their  chance  once,  and  if  they 
don't  veto  my  appointment  then,  they  ought  not  to  have  the 
chance  four  or  five  years  hence.  Suppose  you  admit  that 
you  can  postpone  this  veto.  By  and  by  some  other  professor 
will  be  saying  something  that  is  not  right,  as  we  think,  and 
we  shall  say,  "  Let  us  go  and  veto  him.  We  did  not  veto 
him  then,  but  we  will  do  it  now."  Who  is  safe  ?  I  tell  you  it 
is  in  the  interest  of  freedom  ;  it  is  in  the  interest  of  a  proper 
freedom  that  you  should  not  allow  that  it  is  possible  to  post- 
pone the  veto.  You  have  to  do  it  now,  or  not  at  all.  Very 
well.  Now,  then,  you  have  the  right  to  veto,  and  if  you  veto, 
you  must  veto  now. 

A  veto,  after  all,  is  a  terrible  thing  to  be  threatened  with  ! 
It  seems  to  have  made  the  chairman  of  the  Standing-  Com- 
mittee  on  Theological  Seminaries  himself  sqm'rm  to  think  of 
being  the  possible  subject  of  it.  Theological  freedom,  too, 
may  be  at  stake ;  and  theological  freedom,  the  proper  liberty 
of  a  Christian  scholar  and  teacher,  in  the  last  decade  of  the 
nineteenth  century,  is  a  very  serious  matter.  If  it  must  be 
done,  let  it  be  done  quickly  and  put  the  man  out  of  his 
misery.  Precisely  so ;  but  who  would  have  guessed  it  from 
other  parts  of  this  speech  ? 

But  even  admitting,  for  the  moment,  that  the  Assembly 
had  a  right  to  veto  Dr.  Briggs'  transfer,  is  it  true  that  Now 
or  Never  was  the  absolute  condition  of  its  exercise  ?  Noth- 
ing could  be  further  from  the  truth.  The  rule  adopted  by 
the  Assembly,  that  the  veto  power  must  be  used,  if  at  all, 


EEPOKT   OF   THE   COMMITTEE   ON   SEMINARIES.     85 

by  the  Assembly  to  which  the  election  is  reported,  formed 
no  part  of  the  agreement  of  18Y0,  but  was  suggested  by 
Auburn  a  year  later.  Had  Auburn  and  Lane  been  consulted,  . 
as  they  should  have  been,  and  no  doubt  would  have  been 
but  for  the  manner  in  which  Union  was  hurried  up  by 
pressure  from  Princeton,  such  a  rule  would  probably  have 
been  agreed  upon  by  all  the  three  New  School  institutions, 
acting  in  concert.  Although  a  very  sensible  rule,  it  was 
yet  in  the  nature  of  a  mere  by-law,  belonging  to  the  admin- 
istrative functions  of  the  Assembly,  and  in  such  an  exigency 
might  have  been  suspended  without  the  slightest  impro- 
priety. But  the  leaders  of  the  Assembly — not  to  speak 
with  any  disrespect — seem  to  have  had  "  compact,"  as  well 
as  the  veto  of  Dr.  Briggs,  "  on  the  brain,"  as  the  phrase  is, 
and  so  a  simple  rule  of  fairness  and  prudence,  with  which, 
however,  Union  Seminary  had  nothing  to  do,  took  on,  in 
their  reasoning,  the  color  and  rigidity  of  a  law  of  the  Medes 
and  Persians  which  changeth  not!  A  good  deal  in  the 
whole  matter  impels  one  to  say  with  Faust, 

— der  casus  macht  mich  lachen, 

but  nothing,  I  think,  hke  this  Now  or  Never  plea. 

The  Assembly  then,  it  is  plain,  was  fatally  misled  by  the 
Now  or  Never  plea.  That  plea  was  based  upon  a  sheer 
mistake.  But  it  served  its  purpose  quite  as  well  as  if  it  had 
been  based  upon  an  opinion  of  Chief -Justice  Marshall,  or  up- 
on the  latest  decision  of  the  United  States  Supreme  Court.  It 
deluded  the  Assembly  into  just  the  right  state  of  mind  for 
the  stern  work  in  hand — vetoing  Dr.  Briggs.  See  how  skil- 
fully Dr.  Patton  put  the  case : 

We  are  here  ;  the  presbjiieries  have  sent  us  here,  and  the 
report  of  the  Union  Theological  Seminary  has  brought  this 
question  right  up  to  the  bar  of  every  man's  conscience,  and 


86  UNION"   SEMINARY   AND   THE   ASSEMBLY. 

you  cannot  avoid  it,  and  you  dare  not  avoid  it.  I  do  not  use 
the  word  "  dare  "  in  an  unkind  sense  at  all,  I  simply  use  it  in 
the  moral  sense.  There  we  are.  Now  for  us  not  to  express 
technical  disapproval  is  for  us  to  express  technical  approval. 
And  it  is  not  a  matter  of  reflection  upon  Union  Seminary,  or 
a  matter  of  sentiment  or  regard  for  their  feelings,  or  a  matter 
of  how  much  distm*bance  this  is  going  to  occasion  the  Church, 
but  it  is  a  question  as  to  the  discharge  of  a  solemn  duty  at 
the  bar  of  your  conscience  and  of  mine,  here  and  now.  Then 
I  think  that  every  man  of  us  will  agree  that  the  question  is 
here.  It  is  here.  "We  must  say,  seeing  that  we  have  a  right 
to  veto,  and  seeing  that  we  can  never  veto,  if  we  do  not  do  it 
now,  we  must  say  whether  or  no  there  is  occasion  for  the  veto. 
Now  is  there  an  occasion  for  veto  ? 

Could  he  have  got  his  hearers  just  where  he  wanted  them 
more  adroitly  ?  They  were  in  exactly  the  "  solemnized  " 
mood  and  posture  of  thought  to  hear  most  attentively  his 
answer  to  the  question,  "Now  is  there  occasion  to  veto?" 
ls"o  wonder,  as  the  Detroit  reporter  said,  they  listened 
"spell-bound."  This  solemn,  reiterated  plea,  "Now  or 
Never,"  coupled  with  the  "  compact "  plea,  carried  all  be- 
fore it.  The  only  wonder  is  how  sixty  commissioners  kept 
cool  enough  to  vote  against  vetoing  Dr.  Briggs.  I  am 
really  afraid  I  myself  should  have  vetoed  Dr.  Briggs,  had  I 
been  a  commissioner.  As  to  the  skilful  way  in  which  the 
"  compact "  plea  was  handled,  who  can  fail  to  admire  it  ? 
The  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Theological  Seminaries 
took  "  the  compact "  under  his  special  care  and  guardian- 
ship. He  was  very  jealous  of  the  sh'ghtest  interference 
with  it,  even  by  so  honored  and  learned  an  ecclesiastic  as 
Dr.  Moore.     Hear  him  : 

If  we  are  going  to  veto  under  the  terms  of  the  compact, 
we  must  veto  in  the  terms  of  the  compact. 
Dr.  Moore  (the  Permanent  Clerk):  "Excuse  me,  Doctor,  a 


REPORT   OF   THE   COMMITTEE   ON   SEMINARIES.     87 

moment.  I  want  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  while  the 
first  of  that  is  the  compact,  the  second  is  simply  the  decision 
of  the  General  Assembly." 

Dr.  Patton:  "  That  is  not  relevant  to  my  remarks And 

so  I  go  back  to  my  statement,  in  spite  of  the  instruction  that 
I  have  received,  and  I  say  that  if  you  intend  to  veto  under  the 
terms  of  the  compact,  you  must  veto  in  the  terms  of  the  com- 
pact. Now,  what  are  the  terms  of  the  compact  ?  .  .  .  .  Now, 
when  you  talk  of  disapproving  'for  the  present'  you  de- 
part from  your  compact,  and  you  have  simply  expressed 
your  oral  dislike  and  put  the  stigma  of  your  moral  disap- 
proval upon  the  case,  but  you  have  done  nothing." 

I  tried  to  count  up  the  number  of  times  in  which  "  com- 
pact "  occurs  in  Dr.  Patton's  speech,  but  my  memory  failed 
me.  How  extremely  interested,  not  to  say  entertained, 
William  Adams,  George  W.  Musgrave,  Henry  B.  Smith, 
Jonathan  F.  Stearns,  and  Edwin  F.  Hatfield  would  have 
been  in  listening  to  this  exposition  of  "  the  compact  of 
1870,"  by  so  adroit  an  ecclesiastic  as  the  President  of 
Princeton  College ! 

The  most  striking  point  in  the  chairman's  discussion  of 
the  question,  whether  there  was  occasion  for  veto,  is  "  kind- 
ness "  to  Dr.  Briggs.  It  is  "  kindness  "  to  Dr.  Briggs  that 
forced  him  to  turn  a  deaf  ear  to  all  entreaties  for  "  reasons." 
"  Well,  but,"  it  is  said,  "  couldn't  you  state  some  reasons 
without  involving  the  question  of  heresy  ?  "  "  Yes,"  I  said, 
"  I  could."  "  Well,"  said  some  one,  "  you  have  been  work- 
ing in  theology ;  couldn't  you  draft  such  a  report  ? " 
"■  Yes,"  I  said,  "  I  might."  But  "  kindness  "  to  Dr.  Briggs 
forbade  it.     Here  are  some  passages  about  Dr.  Briggs : 

When  your  feelings  cool  down,  brethren,  you  will  see  that 
this  is  a  much  kinder  thing  than  you  think,  and  it  is  not  so 

cold,  either  ;  we  made  it  cold,  but  it  is  not  so  cold So 

far  as  Dr.  Briggs  is  concerned,  I  will  yield  to  none  of  hia 


88  UNION   SEMINARY   AND   THE  ASSEMBLY. 

friends,  not  even  tlie  best,  in  my  recognition  of  his  learning, 
in  my  admiration  of  his  industry,  in  my  conviction  concern- 
ing his  piety.  He  is  my  friend.  It  is  my  privilege  to  caD 
him  so.  I  venture  to  hope  that  in  spite  of  my  relations  to 
this  debate  he  wlU  not  be  unwilling  to  reciprocate  my  ex- 
pression of  the  relationship  between  us I  wish  to  say 

that  we  have  done  this  in  the  interest  of  kindness  to  Dr. 
Briggs.  I  would  be  unwilling  for  the  Assembly  to  pass  a 
resolution,  in  the  fuU  body  of  which  there  should  be  the 
stigma  of  a  constitutional  kind,  that  would  affirm  that  Dr. 
Briggs'  idiosyncrasies  are  such  that  he  should  not  be  a  pro- 
fessor in  a  seminary.  Why,  a  man's  idiosyncrasies  go  with 
him  through  life,  and  I  don't  know  but  they  go  into  the 
middle  state,  [laughter]  and  I  am  not  willing  to  say  that  Dr. 
Briggs  is  not  fit  to  be  a  professor  in  any  seminary,  I  am 
not  willing  to  say  that  he  is  not  fit  to  be  a  professor  in  Union 

Seminary.    Not  at  all I  said,  *'  Brethren,  it  is  not  kind, 

it  is  not  right  for  the  Assembly,  in  its  expHcit  utterance  on 
the  adoption  of  a  report,  to  say  a  word  that  can  be  construed, 
even  remotely,  to  the  detriment  of  Dr.  Briggs."  That  is  why 
we  did  not  give  reasons,  but  it  was  not  because  we  had  no 
reasons     We  had  reasons. 

Dr.  Patton  and  his  committee,  then,  had  reasons.  The 
reasons  appear  to  have  been  as  plentiful  as  blackberries. 
But  nobody  was  the  wiser  for  them.  Nobod}'  is  the  wiser 
for  them  to  this  day.  Every  now  and  then  at  Detroit  they 
seemed,  to  be  sure,  on  the  very  point  of  leaking  out,  both 
in  the  speeches  of  the  chairman  and  in  those  of  several 
members  of  his  committee.  In  other  speeches  they  not 
only  leaked  out,  they  came  gushing  out,  explicit,  frank,  and 
unmistakable.  I  said  that  a  good  deal  of  the  discussion  at 
Detroit  consisted  in  beating  about  the  bush.  In  this  the 
chairman  surpassed  all  his  brethren.  The  the  logical  agility 
and  deftness  with  which  he  beat,  and  beat  about,  this  par. 


REPORT   OF  THE   COMMITTEE   ON   SEMINARIES.     89 

ticular  bush  of  "no  reasons"  was  something  remarkable. 
He  keeps  saying,  as  it  were  : 

Fain  would  I,  but  I  dare  not ;  I  dare,  and  yet  I  may  not. 
It  appears,  then,  that  while  the  Standing  Committee  on 
Theological  Seminaries  had  plenty  of  reasons — good,  valid 
reasons,  as  they  believed — for  recommending  the  veto  of 
Dr.  Briggs'  transfer,  they  purposely  concealed  these  reasons, 
alike  from  the  Assembly  and  from  the  Christian  public. 
Nobody,  I  repeat,  knew  then,  or  knows  to  this  day,  unless 
privately  informed  by  some  member  of  the  committee, 
what  was  the  ground  of  the  decision  for  which  they  are 
responsible  to  Christian  scholarship,  to  history,  and  to  God. 
They  themselves  acted,  as  they  said,  in  the  light  of  their 
own  reason  and  conscience.  They  left  the  Assembly  to  act 
in  the  dark  and  adopt  their  decision  on  trust.  If  the 
President  of  the  United  States  disapprove  a  bill  passed  by 
Congress,  he  is  required  to  return  the  bill  with  his  objec- 
tions. If  the  Governor  of  New  York  disapprove  of  a  bill 
passed  by  the  Legislature,  he  sends  it  back  with  his  reasons 
for  vetoing  it.  And  this  is  according  to  the  true  genius  of 
republican  liberty.  Our  American  idea  of  free  govermnent 
abhors  arbitrary,  reasonless  exercise  of  power.  If  the  agree- 
ment of  1870  had  given  the  General  Assembly  "  the  right 
of  peremptory  veto,"  as  proposed  in  the  letter  of  Dr.  A.  A. 
Hodge  to  Henry  JB.  Smith,  then,  indeed,  the  recommenda- 
tion of  Dr.  Patton's  committee  would  have  been  in  order. 
A  peremptory  veto  is  a  veto  that  requires  no  explanation. 
It  is  like  an  edict  of  the  Sultan — an  arbitrary  act,  pure 
and  simple.  The  American  Presbyterianism,  in  which 
Union  Seminary  was  born  and  nurtured,  is  not  fond  of 
such  acts.  It  likes  to  give  a  good  reason  for  what  it  does, 
as  well  as  for  what  it  believes.  The  power  of  intelligible, 
rational,  Christian  disapproval,  not  2i  jperemjptory  veto,  was 
the  power  conceded  by  Union  Seminary  in  1870. 


90  UXION   SEMINAKY   AND   THE  ASSEMBLY. 

Before  passing  from  this  topic  I  desire  to  add  a  word 
respecting  the  course  of  the  chairman  of  the  Standing 
Committee  on  Theological  Seminaries.  When  I  wrote  the 
article  in  The  E'vangelist  of  May  21st  on  the  veto  power,  I 
pm-posely  restrained  myself,  and  carefully  omitted  to  say 
what  would  be,  in  my  judgment,  the  inevitable  effects  of  a 
veto  of  Dr.  Briggs'  transfer.  In  this  perhaps  I  erred ;  if 
so,  it  was  in  the  interest  of  the  peace  of  the  Church.  The 
crisis  seemed  to  me  serious  enough  to  demand  the  utmost 
caution,  not  to  say  reticence,  on  the  part  of  every  friend  of 
Union  Seminary.  Having  expressed  the  opinion  that  the 
question  about  the  veto  power  touched  in  principle  all  the 
other  theological  seminaries  in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  I 
closed  my  article  as  follows : 

The  General  Assembly  is  shoiily  to  convene  and  show  its 
judgment  upon  the  matter.  Nor,  for  myself,  have  I  any  fear 
of  the  result.  Many  of  the  ablest,  wisest,  and  best  men  in 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  both  of  the  ministry  and  eldership, 
will  sit  in  that  Assembly,  and  they  will  not  be  likely  to  coun- 
tenance any  hasty  or  unjust  action. 

This  was  my  honest  feeling  and  expectation.  When, 
therefore,  the  result  came  my  disappointment  was  all  the 
keener,  especially  with  regard  to  Dr.  Patton.  Although 
my  acquaintance  with  him  was  slight,  I  had  for  many  years 
admired  his  varied  gifts  and  his  remarkable  power  of  sway- 
ing a  popular  assembly.  His  oft-expressed  reverence  for 
the  character  and  memory  of  my  bosom  friend,  Henry  B. 
Smith,  touched  me  in  a  very  tender  spot ;  and  I  had  heard 
things  related  of  him,  privately,  which  won  my  sincere 
esteem.  There  are  few  men  in  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
perhaps  there  is  not  another  one,  of  whom  I  could  have 
honestly  said  just  what  in  my  letter  to  Dr.  Field,  in  The 
Evangelist  of  June  11, 1  wrote  of  Dr.  Patton.     And  what 


UNION   SEMINARY   AND   PRINCETON.  91 

is  there  written  of  him  expresses  so  truly  my  feeling  still, 
that  I  can  only  repeat  it  here : 

He  had  an  opportunity  to  speak  a  word  and  strike  a  blow 
for  justice,  for  sacred  scholarship,  for  reasonable  liberty, 
both  of  thought  and  teaching,  for  the  suppression  of  clamor 
as  an  ecclesiastical  and  theological  force,  and  for  the  highest 
interests  of  Christian  truth,  which,  like  the  shot  fired  by 
the  "  embattled  fanners "  at  Lexington,  would  have  been 
"  heard  round  the  world."  Acting,  I  do  not  question,  from 
a  strong  sense  of  duty  to  the  Presbyterian  Chvirch,  he  failed 
to  seize  it ;  and  he  will  be  a  fortunate  man  indeed,  if  Provi- 
dence ever  again  entrusts  to  him  such  an  opportunity. 

{g).   Union  Theological  Seminary  in  its  relations  to 
Princeton. 

I  have  been  connected  with  Union  Seminary,  either  as 
director  or  professor,  for  about  forty  years,  and  during  all 
that  time  my  relations  with  Princeton  have  been  of  the 
friendliest  character.  !N^ever  have  I  failed  to  recognize  the 
invaluable  services  rendered  by  her  scholars  and  divines  to 
the  cause  of  Biblical  learning  and  of  sacred  science  in  this 
country.  Though  trained  in  other  schools  of  thought  and 
of  theological  opinion,  I  have  always  found  much  to  admire 
in  her  sturdy  orthodoxy,  in  her  fidelity  to  the  teachings  of 
the  "Westminster  standards  on  the  great  questions  of  the 
church  and  the  sacraments,  in  her  homage  to  the  authority 
of  the  inspired  oracles,  and  in  the  fervor  of  her  piety.  The 
name  of  her  "  Old  Dr.  Alexander "  was  as  familiar,  and 
almost  as  dear,  to  my  boyhood  as  the  name  of  "  Dr.  Pay- 
son,"  or  that  of  any  other  minister  of  Christ  in  New  Eng- 
land. I  might  mention  other  names  on  her  roll  of  saints 
of  earlier  and  of  later  days,  for  whom  I  cherished,  and  still 
cherish,  sentiments  of  unfeigned  respect  and  affection. 
Who   could   have  even   a  casual   acquaintance  with  Dr. 


92  UNION   SEMINARY  AND   THE  ASSEMBLY. 

Cliarles  Hodge  without  beginning  at  once  to  love  and 
revere  him  ?  And  I  say  frankly  that  in  his  theology,  as  in 
that  of  Dr.  Alexander,  there  was  not  a  little  that  I  pre- 
ferred to  not  a  little  of  the  theology  dominant  in  New 
England  while  I  was  a  pastor  there,  or  in  the  New  School 
Presbyterian  Church  when  I  first  came  into  it.  But  there 
were  also  certain  features  of  Princeton  theology  and  of 
the  Old  School  ecclesiastical  temper,  which  never  attracted 
me  in  the  least ;  some,  indeed,  which  strongly  repelled  me. 
I  used  to  think  that  Princeton  was  altogether  too  inclined 
to  fancy  that  her  theology  was,  and  of  right  ought  to  be, 
the  only  authorized  theology  in  the  Presbyterian  Church. 
Nor  did  reunion  seem  to  me  to  cure  her  wholly  of  this 
fond  notion. 

I  have  ventured  to  speak  of  my  personal  relations  to 
Princeton.  So  far  as  is  known  to  me,  the  relations  of 
Union  Seminary  to  Princeton  have  been  of  the  same 
friendly  character ;  only  in  the  case  of  one  of  her  oldest 
directors  and  professors,  the  saintly  Skinner,  much  more 
intimate.  Dr.  Skinner  was  a  typical  New  School  theo- 
logian, enthusiastic  and  whole-souled  in  his  devotion  to  the 
New  England  and  Puritan,  in  distinction  from  the  Scottish, 
Scotch-Irish,  and  Swiss  divinity.  He  held  the  writings  of 
Baxter,  Howe,  Owen,  Jonathan  Edwards,  and  Albert 
Barnes  in  much  greater  esteem  than  the  WTitings  of  Tur- 
retin  and  his  school,  whether  in  Scotland  or  America. 
And  he  bore  upon  his  person  the  scars  of  many  a  sharp 
encounter  in  defense  of  his  opinions,  while  preaching  and 
fighting  for  his  Master  amidst  the  powerful  foes  who,  in 
the  second  and  third  decades  of  the  century,  represented 
conservative  Presbyterian  orthodoxy  at  Philadelphia,  But 
for  all  that,  a  very  warm  friendship  existed  between  Dr. 
Skinner  and  Dr.  Charles  Hodge.  They  loved  each  other 
with  the  generous  fervor  of  Christian   brotherhood,  an^ 


UiSriON   SEMINAEY   AND   PRINCETON.  93 

when,  in  1871,  Dr.  Skinner  passed  suddenly  into  the  glory 
of  that  risen  Redeemer  whom  he  so  adored,  Dr.  Ilodge 
wrote  thus  to  the  Faculty  of  Union  Seminary  : 

"When  your  beloved  and  revered  colleague,  Dr.  Thomas  H. 
Skinner,  was  called  away,  I  was  ill  in  bed.  I  was  not  in- 
f onned  of  his  death  for  more  than  a  week  after  its  occurrence. 
I  wish  these  facts  to  be  known,  because  no  person  was  under 
stronger  obligation  to  stand  at  the  grave  of  Thomas  H.  Skin- 
ner than  myself ;  and  few  had  better  right  to  appear  there 
as  a  mourner.  For  more  than  fifty-five  years  I  knew,  loved, 
and  honored,  and  was  loved  and  trusted  by  him.  Of  this 
he  assured  me,  and  no  man  ever  doubted  his  sincerity. 

You  must  excuse  the  personal  character  of  this  communi- 
cation. I  cannot  forbear  entering  my  claim  to  be  counted 
among  the  oldest  and  most  devoted  of  his  friends.  He  was 
a  man  by  himself.  The  union  of  high  gifts  with  the  most 
transparent,  childlike  simplicity  of  character  gave  him  a 
peculiar  position  in  the  love  and  admiration  of  his  friends. 

Dr.  Henry  White  studied  theology  at  Princeton  ;  but  of 
his  relations  to  that  seminary  in  his  later  years  I  cannot 
speak.  Nor  do  I  know  what  were  those  of  Edward  Rob- 
inson, the  great  Biblical  scholar. 

Henry  B.  Smith  had  no  early  association  with  Princeton. 
As  late  as  1850,  when  he  came  to  New  York,  the  embit- 
tered feelings  of  1837-8  were  still  rankling.  Ecclesias- 
tically and  theologically,  one  might  almost  say,  as  it  is 
written  concerning  the  Jews  and  the  Samaritans,  Old  School 
and  New  School  "had  no  dealings  with  each  other."  I 
speak  of  my  own  recollections  and  experience.  For  years 
after  I  became  pastor  of  the  Mercer-street  Presbyterian 
Church,  the  Old  School  ministers  of  New  York — and  such 
men  as  Spring,  Potts,  James  W.  Alexander,  and  Krebs 
were  among  them — neither  called  upon  me  nor  I  upon 
them.     We  never  exchanged  pulpits.     We  had  no  social 


94  UNION   SEMINARY   AND   THE  ASSEMBLY. 

intercourse,  except  incidentally.  I  cared  nothing  for  them 
except  to  esteem  them,  in  a  general  way,  as  faithful  minis- 
ters of  Clirist;  and  they,  I  presume,  cared  still  less  for 
me.  The  Congregationalists,  the  Baptists,  the  Methodists, 
the  Episcopalians,  attracted  me  much  more  than  Old 
School  Presbyterians.  They  never  crossed  the  threshold 
of  our  Chi  Alpha  circle  or  of  Union  Seminary.  It  was  the 
prevailing  Presbyterian  atmosphere  of  the  day.  I  yielded 
to  it,  partly  from  temperament,  partly  because  there  seemed 
to  be,  theologically  speaking,  "  a  certain  condescension  "  on 
the  part  of  the  Old  School,  as  if  its  orthodoxy,  especially 
as  taught  at  Princeton,  was  the  only  standard  orthodoxy ; 
and  that  was  not  at  all  to  my  taste. 

My  impression  is  that  this  state  of  things  influenced  Pro- 
fessor Smith  less  than  it  did  me.  His  sympathy  with  im- 
portant features  of  Old  School  theology  was,  perhaps, 
deeper  and  more  active  than  mine.  And  he  far  surpassed 
me  in  the  feeling  that  not  only  was  such  a  state  of  things 
wrong,  but  that  it  ought  to  be  changed  just  as  soon  as  pos- 
sible. I  do  not  think  he  had  much  intercourse  with  Prince- 
ton ;  and  later,  as  is  well  known,  he  took  decided  ground  in 
his  Review  and  elsewhere  against  some  of  Dr.  Hodge's 
views.  But  nothing  petty  or  partisan  was  ever  allowed  to 
enter  into  the  discussion.  He  was  far  above  such  a  thing. 
He  attended  Dr.  Hodge's  semi-centennial  in  1872,  and,  on 
behalf  of  Union  Seminary,  spoke  with  admiration  of  that 
great  and  good  man.  Here  are  a  few  sentences  from  his 
address  on  the  occasion  : 

It  is  only  the  accident  of  my  being  bom  two  or  three 
years  earlier  that  prevents  you  from  hearing  some  more  elo- 
quent representative  of  om-  institution,  for  we  are  all  here. 
[Applause.]  ....  For  the  fii'st  time  in  America,  we  cele- 
brate to-day  the  semi-centennial  of  a  professor  in  a  theolog- 
ical institution.     It  is  a  matter  of  sincere  congratulation  that 


UNION   SEMINARY   AND   PRINCETON.  95 

the  merit  is  as  incontestable  as  are  tlie  years.  To  speak  on 
^tucb  an  occasion  is  embarrassing  ;  but,  after  all,  this  assem- 
blage itself  is  the  great  speech  of  the  occasion.  All  these 
ministers  and  men  gathered  from  aU  parts  of  our  land,  from 
all  parts  of  the  world,  are  here  to  do  honor  to  one  most  hon- 
orable name,  to  testify  to  the  power  and  influence  of  a  long 
and  noble  life  consecrated  to  the  highest  welfare  of  our 
country,  as  well  as  to  the  service  of  the  Church  of  our  Lord 

and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ In  comparison  with  such  a 

life,  I  do  not  know  what  glory  in  peace  or  war  can  be  called 
gi-eater  or  more  worthy  of  the  highest  style  of  manhness  or 
manhood. 

There  is  another  circumstance  about  this  celebration  which 
we  may  well  emphasize,  and  that  is,  that  here  we  meet,  as 
we  so  seldom  can,  to  pay  due  honor  also  to  theology,  to  see 
what  theology  is  and  means,  and  how  it  is  needed  for  the 
highest  welfare  and  true  progress  of  the  nation.  Literature 
is  spoken  of  every  day,  and  appeals  to  aU.  Merely  literary 
men  live  in  a  popular  atmosphere,  but  theology  must  be 
studied  in  comparative  seclusion.  Its  fruits  are  the  fniits  of 
mature  years,  and  they  come  to  be  known  in  their  full  value 
only  after  a  long  lapse  of  time.  In  behalf  of  our  Seminary, 
then,  I  would  congratulate  him  whose  name  is  on  all  our  lips 
to-day,  for  the  high  honor  to  which  he  has  been  called,  and 
for  the  eminent  success  vouchsafed  to  him.  We  offer  to  him 
the  expression  of  our  deep  and  unfeigned  esteem  and  affec- 
tion. May  he  yet  many  years  live  to  receive  the  grateful 
tributes  of  the  Church  which  he  has  always  loved,  and  which 
loves  him  so  weU.  And,  above  all,  may  he  now  and  evermore 
be  blessed  with  all  spiritual  blessings  in  Jesus  Christ  our 
Lord! 

Dr.  Adams'  relations  to  Princeton,  in  his  later  years  at 
least,  were  much  closer  and  more  pronounced.  To  him,  as 
we  have  seen,  Princeton  was  chiefly  indebted  for  whatever 
of  good  she  found  in  that  veto  power,  which  relieved  her 


96  UNION   SEMINARY   AND   THE  ASSEMBLY. 

of  the  necessity  of  having  her  professors  elected  by  the 
General  Assembly.  The  last  person  outside  of  his  own 
family  who  saw  Dr.  Hodge  before  he  departed  was  Dr. 
Adams.  As  the  latter  came  to  the  bedside,  Dr.  Hodge 
took  his  hand  and  held  it  fast  during  the  whole  interview. 
Although  too  feeble  to  speak  with  his  lips,  by  a  silent 
pressure  of  the  hand  and  with  expressive  eyes  the  dying 
theologian  responded  to  the  assurance  how  many  there  were 
who  held  him  in  their  thoughts  and  hearts,  and  to  com- 
forting words  of  Holy  Scripture. 

Dr.  Hitchcock  stood  upon  substantially  the  same  ground 
as  Professor  Smith  with  respect  to  Princeton.  In  New 
England  he  had  sympathized  rather  with  the  Old  than  the 
New  School  of  Congregational  orthodoxy  ;  and  on  coming 
to  New  York,  while  entering  with  loyal  devotion  into  the 
service  of  the  New  School,  his  generous  culture,  large 
views,  and  catholic  spirit  enabled  him  to  do  full  justice  to 
whatever  was  best  in  the  Old  School.  I  can  recall  no  word 
from  his  lips,  in  public  or  in  private,  between  1855,  when 
he  came  to  New  York,  and  the  day  of  his  death,  which  was 
not  most  friendly  to  Princeton.  Of  Dr.  Shedd  I  might 
use  still  stronger  language,  were  it  needful. 

I  am  not  entitled  to  speak  for  my  present  colleagues  in 
the  Faculty  of  Union  Seminary.  They  are  quite  able  to 
speak  for  themselves.  But  if  a  single  one  of  them  has  not 
a  conscience  void  of  offense  toward  Princeton,  the  reason 
is  unknown  to  me.  The  only  possible  exception  would  be 
Dr.  Briggs,  and  he  is  now  beyond  the  sea.*  What  his  feel- 
ings are  I  can  only  conjecture  by  considering  what  my  own 
would  be,  were  I  in  his  place.  He  no  doubt  believes,  as 
his  friends  believe,  that  the  veto  of  his  transfer  to  the  chair 

*  This  paper  was  prepared  last  summer,  while  Dr.  B.  was 
in  Eui'ope. 


UNION   SEMINARY   AND   PRINCETON.  97 

M  Biblical  Theology  was,  primarily  and  mainly,  the  result 
of  what  may  justly  be  called  Princeton  influence  in  the 
Church.  Had  that  powerful  influence,  whether  exerted 
from  far  or  near,  been  put  forth  in  opposition  to  the  veto, 
or  had  it  only  remained  quiet,  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt 
that  Dr.  Briggs  would  have  been  spared  the  stigma  which 
the  General  Assembly  at  Detroit  placed  upon  his  brow. 

But  while  unable  to  say  what  is  Dr.  Briggs'  present  state  of 
mind  with  regard  to  Princeton,  I  know  what  it  was  during  the 
ten  years  in  which,  as  principal  founder  and  senior  editor  of 
The  Presbyterian  Review^  he  came  into  such  intimate  rela- 
tions with  that  seminary  through  his  successive  co-editors, 
Drs.  Aiken,  Hodge,  Patton,  and  Warfield.  At  his  earnest 
request  I  consented  to  serve  on  the  executive  committee  of 
the  Presbyterian  Review  Association.  He  consulted  me,  both 
as  a  friend  and  as  a  member  of  that  committee,  year  in  and 
year  out.  He  talked  to  me  with  absolute  freedom  respect- 
ing the  Review,  its  policy,  his  colleagues,  and  his  own  plans, 
labors,  and  trials  in  its  management.  He  was  restrained 
by  no  fear  that  anybody  would  ever  know  what  he  said  to 
me.  1  do  not  believe  he  ever  hesitated  to  give  vent  in  my 
ear  to  his  inmost  thoughts,  or  doubts  and  suspicions,  if  he 
had  any,  about  Princeton.  And  yet  as  I  look  back  over 
the  record  in  my  memory  of  those  ten  years  I  see  nothing 
dishonoring  to  Christian  scholarship  ;  nothing  that  did  not 
betoken  a  man  whose  devotion  to  what  he  regarded  as 
sound  doctrine,  the  best  interests  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  the  cause  of  sacred  learning,  and,  above  all,  alle- 
giance to  the  King  of  Truth,  was  an  absorbing  passion. 
Again  and  again  I  said  to  myself,  "  How  this  man  loves 
to  work  for  his  Master  and  his  Master's  kingdom  ! ''  To  be 
sure.  Dr.  Briggs  did,  now  and  then,  say  or  write  things 
about  certain  features  of  Princeton  divinity  and  biblical 
scholarship  which  seemed  to  me  needlessly  severe.     The 


98  UNION   SEMINAEY   AND   THE   ASSEMBLY. 

tone  of  his  article  in  The  Presbyterian  Review  on  the 
Old  Testament  Revision  and  Revisers,  for  example,  I  dis- 
liked exceedingly  and  frankly  told  him  so.  Such  a  tone,  I 
said,  is  against  all  my  convictions  as  to  the  right  temper  of 
Christian  scholarship ;  it  hurts  my  feelings.  And  he  al- 
lowed me  to  say  this  without  the  slightest  sign  of  irritation. 

But  to  speak  unadvisedly  with  one's  lips,  or  one's  pen,  is 
really  no  new  thing  in  the  annals  of  American  Preshyte- 
rianism.  Dr.  Briggs  did  not  invent  it.  If,  as  is  charged, 
he  has  sinned  in  that  line,  his  sins  are  venial  in  comparison 
with  those  of  not  a  few  eminent  Presbyterians  in  the 
eighteenth  century  and  in  the  nineteenth.  How  some  Old 
and  New  School  men  used  to  "  talk  back  "  to  each  other ! 
And  it  always  did  seem  to  me  that,  as  a  general  rule,  an 
Old  School  Presbyterian,  when  once  fairly  aroused  and 
"  on  the  war-path,"  so  to  say,  left  a  New  School  Presbyte- 
rian, however  gifted  and  advanced  in  that  method,  far 
behind.  I  have  expressed  my  honest  respect,  not  to  say 
admiration,  for  Dr.  Robert  J.  Breckinridge.  But  what 
shall  be  said  of  the  tone  and  manner  in  which  he  was  wont 
to  express  his  mind  about  his  New  School  brethren — and, 
as  for  that,  his  Old  School  brethren,  also,  when  they  dif- 
fered with  him — in  1834,  1837-8,  at  the  Philadelphia 
Union  Convention  in  1867,  and  in  the  General  Assembly 
at  Albany  in  1868  ?  What  could  have  been  more  provok- 
ing than  his  biting  criticism  upon  the  noble  report  of  Dr. 
Adams  and  Dr.  Beatty  on  reunion — a  report  so  seasoned 
with  the  meekness  of  wisdom — pronouncing  it  unworthy 
of  the  great  Presbyterian  Church  and  "  deficient  in  style, 
literature,  grammar,  and  rhetoric  from  one  end  to  the 
other"  ! 

The  simple  fact  is,  that  Presbyterians  now  and  then 
are  not  only,  as  they  have  often  been  called,  the  Lord's 
"  silly  people,"  but  they  are  also  the  Lord's  fighting  people. 


UNION   SEMINARY   AND   PRINCETON.  99 

Their  Calvinism  makes  tliem  bold  and  determined,  but  it 
tends  also  to  make  them  somewhat  pugnacious  and  domi- 
neering. They  hold  a  high  doctrine  of  original  and  in- 
dwelHngsin ;  and  I  have  wondered  whether,  in  His  permis- 
sive will,  God  did  not  allow  an  unusually  large  share  of 
the  latter  to  remain  in  them  in  attestation  of  their  doctrine, 
as  also  to  keep  down  their  pride  of  orthodoxy. 

When  I  consider  what  have  been  Dr.  Briggs'  services  to 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  to  Christian   scholarship; 
how  far  they  exceed  in  variety,  amount,  and  quality  those 
of  most  other  Presbyterian  scholars  of  his  own  day,  and 
with  what  fidelity  and  devotion  he  has  rendered  them,  I 
am  little  in  the  mood  to  complain  of  his  faults  or  to  hear 
others  do  so.     As  to  his  relations  to  Princeton  during  the 
ten  years  to  which  I  have  referred  there  is  no  ground 
whatever,  I  repeat,  so  far  as  my  knowledge  goes,  to  speak 
of  him  otherwise  than  in   terms  of  respect  and   praise. 
Upon  his  severing  his  connection  with  The  Presbyterian 
Review  the  sense  of  his  services,  entertained  by  the  Keview 
Association,  was  expressed  in  the  following  letter  addressed 
to  him  by  Dr.  Aiken,  under  date  of  Princeton,  Oct.  18, 1889 : 
At  the  meeting  of  the  Eeview  Association  in  New  York,  on 
"Wednesday  last,  it  was  unanimously  and  heartily  voted  that 
the  thanks  of  the  Association  be  given  to  you  for  the  many 
important  services  which  you  have  rendered  the  Association 
during  the  ten  years  of  its  history.     We  recognize  your  con- 
spicuous and  invaluable  service  in  the  starting  of  the  Asso- 
ciation and  the  Remew,  and,  in  many  ways,  in  maintaining 
both.     We  recognize  the  great  benefit  we  have  derived  from 
your  deep  interest  in  the  Review,  your  indefatigable  energy 
and  industry,  your  wide  acquaintance  with  men  on  both 
sides  of  the  water,  your  patience  in  looking  after  details,  and 
your  wide  outlook  over  the  field  which  the  Review  was  aimed 

to  cover. 

And  the  embarrassments  of  various  kinds  which  appear 


100  UNION   SEMINAEY   AND   THE  ASSEMBLY. 

now  to  have  brought  to  an  end  the  work  of  the  Review,  make 
us  only  the  more  eager  to  express  to  you  our  sense  of  what 
we  owe  you.  It  was  on  my  motion  that  this  vote  was 
passed, — but  it  needed  only  the  motion  to  secure  the  instant 
and  unanimous  assent  of  all  present.  The  absent,  we  are 
sure,  would  have  concurred  with  us.  I  was  requested  to 
communicate  with  you,  freely,  without  any  form  of  words 
proposed  by  me,  or  given  me  to  transcribe.  It  gives  me  per- 
sonally real  pleasure  to  be  the  organ  of  the  Association  in 
conveying  to  you  the  knowledge  of  this  action. 

The  members  of  the  Executive  Committee  of  the  Re- 
view Association  at  this  time  were  "William  M.  Paxton, 
Charles  A.  Aiken,  Benjamin  B.  Warfield,  Thomas  S.  Hast- 
ings, George  L.  Prentiss,  and  Marvin  R.  Vincent. 

It  is  hardly  needful  to  say  more  of  the  friendly  relations 
of  Union  to  Princeton.  On  the  part  of  Union,  for  forty 
years  at  least,  I  can  testify  that,  so  far  as  I  know,  not  only 
has  no  hostile  sentiment  toward  Princeton  been  cherished 
by  her,  but  habitually  and  on  principle  has  she  abstained 
from  saying  or  doing  aught  that  might  stir  up  jealousy, 
strife,  or  rivalry  between  the  two  institutions.  Her  record 
in  this  respect  is  clear  and  unimpeachable.  Had  Union 
Seminary  been  established  a  few  years  earlier,  the  case 
might  have  been  different.  In  a  letter  dated  New  York, 
June  5,  1827,  Dr.  John  Holt  Pice,  one  of  the  wisest  and 
best  men  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  that  day,  writes : 

While  all  the  brethren  appear  to  regard  me  with  gi-eat  per- 
sonal affection,  neither  of  the  parties  are  entirely  cordial  to 
me.  The  Princeton  people  apprehend  that  I  am  approximat- 
ing to  Auburn  notions  ;  and  the  zealous  partisans  of  New 
England  divinity  think  me  a  thorough-going  Princetonian.  So 
it  is!  And  while  there  is  much  less  of  the  unseemly  bitter 
ness  and  asperity  which  brought  reproach  upon  the  Church 
in  past  times,  I  can  see  that  the  sj)irit  of  party  has  struck 


UXION   SEMINARY   AND   PRINCETON.  101 

deeper  than  I  had  even  supposed.  And  I  do  fully  expect 
that  there  will  be  either  a  strong  effort  to  bring  Princeton 
under  different  management,  or  to  build  up  a  new  seminary 
in  the  vicinity  of  New  York,  to  counteract  the  influence  of 
Princeton.  One  or  the  other  of  these  things  wiU  assuredly 
be  done  before  long,  unless  the  Lord  interpose  and  turn  the 
hearts  of  the  ministers. 

Fortunately,  Union  Seminary  was  founded  nine  years 
later,  and  with  no  design  whatever  antagonistic  to  Prince- 
ton. Such,  then,  being  her  record  from  the  beginning  until 
now,  can  it  be  thought  strange  that  the  course  of  Princeton 
at  Detroit  was  regarded  by  the  friends  of  Union,  in  view 
especially  of  1870,  with  most  painful  surprise  ?  or  that 
they  felt  deeply  offended  and  injured  by  it  ?  Is  it  strange 
if  it  inflicted  one  of  those  wounds,  that  are  apt  to  rankle 
long  and  are  very  hard  to  cure  ?  "  I  doubt,"  writes  an  old 
and  devoted  friend  of  Union  Seminary,  "  I  doubt  whether 
you  fully  realize  the  depth,  or  extent,  of  the  indignant  feel- 
ing which  the  course  of  Princeton  at  Detroit  aroused  among 
thousands  of  thoughtful  men  and  women,  throughout  the 
country.  It  was,  and  still  is,  largely  a  suppressed  feeling — 
suppressed  partly,  perhaps,  by  reason  of  its  very  intensity 
and  in  part  for  the  sake  of  the  peace  of  the  Church— but  a 
feeling  which,  you  may  rest  assured,  is  not  going  to  be  al- 
layed by  any  pious  truisms.  It  is  not  now  the  case  of  Dr. 
Briggs  chiefly — that  is  a  mere  occasion  and  passing  incident 
—it  is  the  honest  conviction  that  vital  principles  of  Amer- 
ican Presbyterianism,  as  well  as  vital  principles  of  justice 
and  Christian  liberty,  are  involved,  which  renders  this  feel- 
ing so  deep  and  strong.  As  to  Union  Seminary,  what  a 
return  she  got  for  her  services  to  Princeton  in  1870 !  How 
would  William  Adams  have  felt,  could  he  have  foreseen 
it !  I  do  not  envy  the  President  of  Princeton  College  his 
part  in  this  matter.     Would  his  illustrious  predecessor,  the 


102  UNION   SEMINARY   AND   THE   ASSEMBLY. 

venerable  Dr.  McCosh,  ever  have  consented  to  act  such 
part  ?     It  does  not  seem  to  me  even  thinkable. 

"  The  union  of  the  Old  and  New  School  Churches  is  gew- 
erally  regarded  as  one  of  the  greatest  events  in  the  annals 
of  American  Presbjterianism.  What  was  the  agency  of 
Princeton  in  bringing  it  about  'i  Dr.  Hodge  from  first  to 
last  was  its  strongest  opponent.  What  was  the  agency  of 
Union  in  bringing  it  about?  Henry  B.  Smith  was  its  fore- 
most leader  and  advocate.  By  his  memorable  sermon  at 
Dayton  in  1864,  by  his  editorials  in  27ie  Evangelist^  by  the 
powerful  articles  in  his  JReview,  he  more  than  any  other 
man  started,  defended,  and  guided  the  movement.  With- 
out Henry  B.  Smith  and  such  coadjutors,  among  the  direct- 
ors of  Union  Seminary,  as  William  Adams,  Jonathan  F. 
Stearns,  Edwin  F.  Hatfield,  and  William  E.  Dodge,  I,  for 
one,  do  not  believe  Heunion  would  have  been  accomplished 
even  to  this  day.  It  had  other  very  able  New  School  ad- 
vocates, whose  services  also  w-ere  invaluable.  And  without 
such  strong  friends  in  the  Old  School  branch  as  Drs.  Beatty, 
Gurley,  Musgrave,  Monfort,  Allison,  and  many  others 
like  them,  it  could  not,  of  course,  have  been  accomplished. 
But  so  far  as  reunion  was  a  great  blessing  to  the  Presbyte- 
rian Church,  the  agency  of  Union  in  bringing  it  to  pass  en- 
titles her,  it  seems  to  me,  to  lasting  gratitude ;  certainly  to 
treatment  very  different  from  that  of  which  she  has  so  often 
and  in  so  many  quarters  been  the  subject  during  the  past 
six  months.  Nor  is  it  a  small  service  that  Union  has  ren- 
dered both  to  the  Presbyterian  Church  and  to  Christian 
scholarship  as  a  living  centre  of  reasonable  theological  free- 
dom and  progress.  '  I  am  not  afraid  to  say  that  a  new  idea 
never  originated  in  this  Seminary,'  was  the  remark  of  Dr. 
Hodge  at  his  semi-centennial.  That  has  never  been  the 
position  of  Union.  She  welcomes  all  new  ideas,  that  '  swim 
into  her  ken '  from  the  word  of  God  or  from  the  vast  realm 


THE   ACTION   AT  DETRIOT   AS   AX   EYE-OPENER.  103 

of  science.  How  many  new  '  ideas '  originated  in  Union 
Seminary  in  the  days  of  Henry  B.  Smith  !  But  I  weary  you. 
I  took  up  my  pen  simply  to  say  that  the  feeling  caused  by 
the  course  of  Princeton  at  Detroit,  is  really  deeper  and  more 
widespread  than  even  you  appear  to  think.  I  may  be 
wrong,  but  that  is  my  opinion." 

(h).  The  action  at  Detroit  in  the  case  of  Dr.  Briggs 
as  an  eye-opener. 

The  veto  of  Dr.  Briggs  was  a  veritable  eye-opener.  Its 
instantaneous  effect  was  great ;  its  ultimate  effects  are  likely 
to  be  greater.  In  a  moment,  as  by  a  flash  of  lightning,  the 
agreement  of  1870  was  seen,  as  it  had  never  been  seen  be- 
fore. It  was  seen  to  involve  alarming  possibilities  of  harm 
to  the  Presbyterian  Church,  to  free  Christian  scholarship, 
and  to  the  cause  of  theological  truth  and  progress.  It  was, 
probably,  at  once  the  cause  and  the  subject  of  more  anxious 
thought  in  one  week  after  the  vote  at  Detroit,  than  during 
all  the  previous  twenty  years.  That  vote  revealed  it  as  an 
arrangement  full  of  explosive  mischief.  Instead  of  contrib- 
uting to  the  "peace  and  prosperity  of  the  Church,"  by 
promoting  mutual  confidence  and  love,  it  showed  itself, 
of  a  sudden,  as  a  stirrer  up  of  strife  and  bitterness.  It 
proved  that  the  many  disadvantages,  infelicities,  and  perils, 
which,  to  those  who  took  an  active  part  in  founding  the 
Union  Theological  Seminary,  appeared  so  serious  in  the 
election  of  professors  by  the  General  Assembly  itself,  were 
no  less  incident  to  the  veto  power  in  the  election  of  pro- 
fessors, when  exercised  by  the  General  Assembly.  In  other 
words,  the  action  at  Detroit  demonstrated  that  the  two  prin- 
cipal grounds  upon  which  the  veto  power  had  been  conceded 
to  the  General  Assembly  by  Union  Seminary  in  1870,  were 
deceptive  and  untenable.  The  evils  specially  deprecated 
and  to  be  guarded  against  by  the  concession  of  that  power 


104  UNION   SEMINARY   AND   THE   ASSEMBLY. 

have  been  sprung  upon  tlie  Churcli  in  its  very  first  exer- 
cise. With  the  best  intentions  in  the  world,  both  the  Board 
of  directors  of  the  Union  Seminary  and  the  General  Assem- 
bly greatly  erred  as  to  the  effects  which,  sooner  or  later, 
would  be  caused  by  arming  the  Assembly  with  authority  to 
forbid,  year  in  and  year  out,  at  its  absolute  discretion,  every 
election  of  a  professor  in  every  Presbyterian  theological 
seminary  in  the  United  States. 

For  a  time  it  may  have  served,  as  the  ninth  "  concurrent 
declaration  "  of  1869  had  been  intended,  "  to  allay  the  ap- 
prehensions of  any  who  might  imagine  that  the  sudden 
accession  and  intermingling  of  great  numbers  [that  is,  the 
coming  in  of  the  New  School  branch]  might  overbear  those 
who  had  hitherto  administrated  these  seminaries  which  had 
been  under  the  control  of  one  branch  of  the  Church.  It 
was  intended  as  a  measure  for  the  maintenance  of  confi- 
dence and  harmony,  and  not  as  indicating  the  best  method 
for  all  future  time."  As  a  measure  for  the  maintenance  of 
confidence  and  harmony  during  that  critical  period  of  tran- 
sition from  a  divided  to  a  reunited  Church,  it  was,  perhaps, 
of  use.  But  time  has  long  since  allayed  any  apprehensions, 
which  the  Old  School  might  have  felt,  of  being  overborne 
in  the  administration  of  their  seminaries  by  a  sudden  acces- 
sion of  the  New  School  to  equal  power  in  the  General  As- 
sembly. Old  School  and  New  School  are  obsolete  terms. 
And  yet  who  can  wonder  that,  in  1870,  some  "  appi-ehen- 
sions,"  if  not  "  jealousy,"  with  regard  to  this  matter  still 
existed  on  the  Old  School  side,  especially  at  Princeton  ? 

The  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in 
the  United  States,  to  return  to  my  point,  is  a  gi'and  and 
powerful  religious  body.  In  its  own  proper  sphere  it  is  a 
mighty  agency  for  building  up  and  extending  the  kingdom 
of  God  on  earth.  But  it  is  singularly  unfitted  to  make  the 
best  possible  choice,  or  to  ascertain  and  forbid  the  unwise 


THE   ACTION   AT   DETROIT   AS   AN   EYE-OPENER.  105 

choice,  of  a  tlieological  professor.  The  chances  seem  to  me 
as  ten  to  one  that,  in  all  ordinary  cases,  the  choice  of  a  pro- 
fessor in  Princeton,  or  Auburn,  or  McCormick,  or  Union, 
or  San  Francisco,  or  any  other  seminary,  will  be  far  more 
wisely  made  by  its  own  board  of  directors  than  by  a  popular 
assembly  composed  of  some  live  hundred  men,  living  thou- 
sands of  miles  apart,  coming  together  for  ten  days,  subject  to 
numberless  misleading  influences  through  ignorance  of  the 
candidate,  and  restrained  perhaps  by  only  a  feeble  sense 
of  direct  personal  responsibility  in  the  case.  Twenty  votes 
in  a  board  of  directors,  composed,  as  the  boards  of  our 
theological  seminaries  usually  are,  of  judicious,  experienced, 
high-minded  Christian  men,  stand  for  more,  and  are  worth 
more,  than  five  hundred  votes  in  General  Assembly.  Of 
course,  the  best  boards  are  liable  also  to  commit  mistakes. 
!N'o  device  or  method  of  election  can  insure  against  possible 
errors  and  imperfections  of  human  judgment,  whether  it 
be  the  judgment  of  eight  and  twenty  directors  or  of  five 
hundred  commissioners. 

Personally,  no  man  has  better  reason  than  I  have  to  speak 
well  of  the  General  Assembly  in  this  regard.  I  myself  bear 
its  imprhnatxir  as  "the  standard  of  Presbyterian  ortho- 
doxy. "  Under  the  lead  of  that  apostolic  servant  of  Christ, 
Dr.  Charles  C.  Beatty,  the  first  General  Assembly  of  the 
reunited  Church,  by  a  unanimous  and  rising  vote,  elected 
me  to  the  chair  of  Systematic  Theology  in  one  of  its  most 
important  seminaries ;  and  upon  my  declining  the  call,  re- 
elected me  wath  similar  unanimity  in  1871.  JS^ever  can  I 
cease  to  feel  grateful  in  remembrance  of  such  uncommon 
kindness  and  honor ;  grateful  also  in  memory  of  the  special 
tokens  of  personal  interest  and  good-will  which  I  received 
from  the  layman  so  distinguished  at  once  for  his  stanch 
Presbyterianism  and  his  generosity,  whose  name  the  Semi- 
nary of  the  Northwest  now  bears. 


106  UNION   SEMINAKY   AND   THE   ASSEMBLY. 

I  will  now  proceed  to  note  some  of  the  ways  in  which, 
the  action  at  Detroit,  in  the  case  of  Dr.  Briggs,  may  be  re- 
garded as  an  eye-opener. 

(1).  In  disclosing  the  doubts  and  scruples  respecting  the 
agreement  of  1870  which  existed  at  the  time,  but  had 
never,  so  far  as  I  am  aware,  been  made  public,  I  refer 
more  especially  to  Lane  Seminary,  which,  like  Union,  was 
entirely  independent  of  ecclesiastical  control.  An  extract 
from  a  letter  of  the  Rev.  Henry  A.  Nelson,  D.D.,  addressed 
to  Hon.  James  R.  Cox,  of  Auburn,  and  published  in  The 
Evcm^elist  of  June  25th,  shows  what  was  done  at  Lane  and 
why  it  was  done.  Dr.  JSTelson  was  a  member  of  the  Joint 
Committee  on  Reunion,  as  well  as  a  professor  at  Lane,  and 
is  known  far  and  wide  as  an  eminently  wise  and  true  man. 
Here  is  the  extract : 

Our  Lane  Seminary  charter  made  its  board  of  trustees  a 
close  ccrporation,  empowered  to  fill  vacancies  in  its  own 
membership,  and  to  appoint  all  professors  and  instructors, 
who  should  hold  their  chairs  al  the  pleasure  of  the  board.  Hon. 
Stanley  Matthews,  afterward  a  justice  of  the  United  States 
Supreme  Court,  was  consvilted  on  the  legal  questions  involved. 
He  stated  clearly  and  positively  that  t4ie  board  of  trustees,  a 
corporate  body,  could  not  legally  delegate  any  of  its  powers 

to  the  General  Assembly  or  to  any  other  body Our 

board  of  trustees  adopted  the  by-law  (as  its  charter  em- 
powered it  to  do)  in  words  like  the  following,  as  nearly  as  I 
remember  :  *  "  Every  election  of  a  professor  in  this  institu- 
tion shall  be  reported  to  the  next  General  Assembly,  and  if 
the  said  Assembly  shall  by  vote  express  its  disapprobation  of 
the  election,  the  professorship  in  question  shall  be  ipso  facto 
vacant  from  and  after  such  veto  of  the  General  Assembly;  it 
being  understood  that  in  such  case  it  is  not  the  pleasure  of  this 

*  I  give  the  resolution  of  the  Lane  Seminary  board  exactly 
as  it  was  passed  {Moore's  Digest,  p.  384:). 


THE  ACTION   AT  DETROIT   AS   AIS"   EYE-OPENEE.    1U7 

board  that  such  professor  shall  continue  in  office."  Judge  Mat- 
thews said  that  this  by-law,  being  adopted  by  the  board  of 
trustees,  could  at  any  time  be  repealed  by  the  board.  The 
board  could  not  divest  itself  of  this  power.  But  as  long  as 
it  should  keep  that  rule  on  its  own  book  and  govern  itself  by 
it,  it  would  no  doubt  have  all  the  moral  effect  which  was 
sought  for.  No  one  of  us  imagined  that  it  could  have  any 
further  legal  force  or  effect  than  was  thus  defined  by  that 
competent  legal  adviser. 

Dr.  E.  D.  Morris,  now  professor  of  Systematic  Theology 
at  Lane,  occupied  in  1S70  the  chair  of  Church  History  in 
that  institution.  Dr.  Morris  has  long  ranked  among  the 
ablest  and  most  judicious  writers  in  this  country  on  ques- 
tions of  ecclesiastical  law  and  polity.  The  Evangelist  of 
July  23, 1891,  contained  a  striking  article  from  his  pen,  en- 
titled ''  The  Compact  of  1870."  The  following  are  extracts 
from  this  article : 

The  writer  does  not  hesitate  to  say  at  this  point,  that  hav- 
ing occasion  in  1871  to  look  into  the  matter  of  legality,  so  far 
as  Lane  was  concerned,  he  was  led  to  the  conclusion  that,  in 
the  eye  of  the  civil  law,  this  compact,  excellent  as  it  was  in 
intention,  was  wholly  unwarranted.  Indeed  it  was  question- 
able in  his  judgment  whether  it  lay  within  the  constitutional 
prerogative  of  the  General  Assembly  to  accept  such  a  func- 
tion if  proffered  to  it,  and  the  recent  experience  has  appeared 
to  him  to  give  some  degree  of  reasonableness  to  that  doubt. 
But  on  the  civil  side  of  the  matter,  it  must  be  ordinarily  clear 
to  any  student  of  the  charter  of  that  institution,  that  its  trus- 
tees are  the  sole  and  only  party  having,  or  that  can  have,  or 
gain,  any  authority  whatsoever  in  the  appointment  of  those 
who,  in  whatever  capacity,  give  instruction  in  it.  These  trus- 
tees are  limited  by  but  one  condition,  that  such  instructors 
shall  be  in  good  standing  in  the  Presbyterian  Cbui-oh.  But 
they  have  no  right  to  go  to  the  Assembly  to  inquire  whether 


108  UNIOlSr   SEMINAET   AND   THE   ASSEMBLY. 

such  or  such  a  teacher  is  in  good  standing,  nor  has  the  Assem- 
bly any  power,  by  mere  resolution,  to  declare  the  standing  of 
any  such  person  to  be  either  good  or  bad.  They  might  go 
to  the  records  of  some  presbytery  having  jurisdiction,  and 
inquire  whether  the  person  involved  was  rectus  in  curia  there ; 
but  they  could  not  commit  to  such  a  body  the  matter  of  ap- 
proving or  disapproving  their  choice  of  him  as  a  teacher.  In 
that  choice  they  are  absolutely  and  forever  sovereign,  with 
no  chartered  right  to  delegate  their  responsibility  to,  or  even 
share  it  in  any  particular  with  any  other  body  whatever.  If 
the  question  were  one  of  financial  administration,  no  couii  in 
the  land  would  justify  these  trustees  in  calling  on  the  General 
Assembly  to  guide  or  to  control  them  in  the  care  of  the  funds 
and  properties  of  that  institution,  and  the  same  legal  princi- 
ple holds  no  less  truly  in  the  exercise  of  any  other  part  of 
their  corjDorate  trust.  The  board  of  Lane  Seminary  is  in 
every  particular,  and  at  all  times,  the  official  authority,  and 
there  can  be  no  other. 

Such  was  the  view  which  the  writer  was  compelled  to  take 
twenty  years  ago,  so  far  as  one  of  these  three  seminaries  was 
concerned,  and  the  recent  discussions  have  served  to  make  it 
evident  that  the  trustees  of  Auburn  and  Union  are  by  the 
chai-ters  of  those  institutions  in  a  very  similar  position. 
Looking  at  the  matter  as  one  of  legal  principle  simply,  to  be 
determined  judicially,  is  it  not  clear  that  these  boards  of  tnist 
could  not  hand  over  to  a  General  Assembly  a  right  of  ultimate 
control  over  any  of  the  endowments  committed  to  their  keep- 
ing ?  And  is  it  not  just  as  clear  that  they  could  not  ask  a 
General  Assembly  to  create  any  new  department,  or  prescribe 
any  change  in  the  methods  of  instruction,  or  to  choose  or 
even  nominate  a  professor  for  any  work  witbin  these  institu- 
tions? All  such  matters  are  committed  by  law  to  these 
several  boards,  and  to  them  alone,  in  the  exercise  of  their 
corporate  sovereignty,  and  there  is  ground  for  the  query 
whether  their  failure  to  exercise  such  prerogative  in  the  way 
prescribed  by  their  respective  charters  would  not  ultimately 


THE   ACTION   AT   DETROIT   AS   AN   EYE-OPENER.  109 

work  a  forfeiture  of  the  funds  intrusted  to  their  keeping. 
No  such  board  could,  for  example,  discharge  their  corps  of 
instructors  and  close  the  institution  indefinitely,  without  be- 
coming subject  to  civil  suit,  even  though  it  should  resolve  to 
commit  its  endowments  meanwhile  to  the  care  aiid  keeping 
of  the  General  Assembly.  And  the  same  principle  must 
apply  to  all  their  acts. 

Turning  from  the  question  of  legality  to  that  of  expediency 
and  desirableness,  we  enter  a  field  more  difficult  of  discussion, 
yet  one  where  a  dispassionate  examination  will  be  likely  to 
lead  thoughtful  men  into  substantial  agreement.  The  com- 
pact is  a  good  one  so  long  as  there  is  no  occasion  to  apply  it. 
As  a  simple  expression  of  good-will  and  cordial  confidence 
between  the  parties  it  is  admirable'.  But  the  moment  a  case 
arises,  in  which  the  judgment  of  any  of  these  boards  of  trust 
goes  in  one  direction,  and  that  of  an  Assembly  goes  in  an- 
other, and  the  Assembly  overrules  such  board  by  vetoing  its 
action  and  displacing  a  teacher,  whom,  in  the  exercise  of  its 
chartered  prerogatives  and  its  corporate  wisdom,  it  has 
chosen,  there  will  always  be  trouble  ;  it  cannot  he  other-wise. 
If  the  Assembly  acts  without  giving  any  reasons,  simply  in- 
terposing its  final  negative  in  the  case,  it  exposes  itself  at 
once  to  the  charge  of  arbitrariness,  and  to  those  immediately 
affected  by  its  action,  that  action  inevitably  savors  of  a 
tyranny  to  which  any  bom  Presbyterian  will  find  it  hard  to 
submit.  On  the  other  hand,  if  an  Assembly  attempts  to  give 
reasons  for  its  veto,  all  such  reasons  must  resolve  themselves 
into  two — the  lack  of  fitness  to  teach,  and  the  lack  of  ortho- 
doxy. How  difficult  it  is  for  an  Assembly  to  adduce  either 
of  these  reasons  in  support  of  its  decision  without  precipitat- 
ing serious  trouble,  will  be  evident  on  very  slight  reflection. 

Suppose  the  reason  to  be  the  lack  of  fitness  to  teach,  what- 
ever may  be  the  special  nature  of  that  lack.  At  once  a 
series  of  questions  spring  up,  such  as  the  following  :  What 
constitutes  fitness  to  teach  in  a  theological  seminary  ?  "What 
are  the  special  requisites  to  success  in  this  or  that  particular 


110  UNION   SEMINARY   AND   THE   ASSEMBLY. 

depaiiment  of  the  theological  study?  Is  the  Assembly  as 
weU  qualified  as  the  particular  board  of  trust  to  ascertain 
whether  the  person  appointed  possesses  such  fitness,  and  in 
•what  degree  ?  Is  it  right  for  a  board,  after  it  has  chosen  a 
teacher  as  the  result  of  the  most  minute  investigation  it  can 
make,  to  let  its  deliberate  judgment  be  set  aside  by  the  veto 
of  a  body  every  way  less  prepared  to  decide  the  matter 
wisely?  "Would  it  be  just  to  the  man  himself,  if,  after  he 
and  the  board  had  settled  the  matter,  and  a  caU  had  beea 
presented  and  accepted,  the  Assembly  should  step  in,  and 
with  only  such  knowledge  as  a  body  so  constituted  would  pos- 
sess, should  hold  him  up  before  the  whole  Church  and  be- 
fore the  world  as  a  person  incompetent  to  teach,  and  unfit 
for  the  place  to  which  he  had  been  chosen  ? 

So  serious  are  such  questions  that  it  is  doubtful  whether 
any  General  Assembly  could  be  induced  to  take  such  a  step 
on  this  ground.  The  case  must  be  an  exceptional  one  in- 
deed ;  and  tbe  veto  of  the  Assembly  would  become  not 
merely  a  remarkable  and  destructive  condemnation  of  the 
man,  but  also  a  verdict  of  gross  incompetency  against  the 
board  who  had  appointed  him.  And  the  case  would  be  more 
exceptional  still  if  the  chosen  instructor  had  already  been  be- 
fore the  Church  for  many  years  in  some  similar  capacity, 
perchance  in  the  same  institution,  and  the  board  that  chose 
him  had  acted  on  the  basis  of  an  experimental  acquaintance 
with  his  abiHties  as  a  teacher 

But  the  second  ground,  the  lack  of  orthodoxy,  is  a  hundred- 
fold more  perplexing.  Suppose  an  Assembly  should  openly 
say,  in  any  given  case.  We  put  our  veto  on  this  appointment, 
because  in  our  judgment  the  chosen  instructor  is  not  ortho- 
dox, or  is  heretical,  according  to  our  standards.  Suppose  it 
should  vary  the  statement,  and  say  in  a  more  guarded  form, 
We  do  not  condemn  this  man  as  a  minister,  but  we  do  pro- 
nounce his  teachings  doubtful  and  dangerous  in  quality,  and 
even  heretical,  and  on  this  ground  declare  him  unfit  as  a 
teacher.     The  Assembly  of  liS36  has  estabUshed  a  precedent 


THE  ACTION   AT  DETROIT  AS   AN   EYE-OPENER.    Ill 

against  any  declaration  of  the  latter  sort,  before  wliich  it 
would  be  very  difficult  to  set  up  valid  opposition.  The  dis- 
tinction between  the  minister  and  professor,  between  the 
man  and  his  teachings,  vanishes  the  moment  it  is  touched. 
It  is  simply  impossible  to  pronounce  the  teaching  heretical 
without  condemning  the  man  also  ;  and  it  is  simply  impos- 
sible to  condemn  the  teacher  without  pronouncing  judgment 
on  the  minister  also.  But  this  is  clearly  inadmissible  under 
our  Form  of  Government.  The  obvious  principle  in  the  case, 
as  the  precedent  of  1836  affirms,  is  that  the  Assembly  cannot 
do  by  indirection  what  it  cannot  do  directly  and  under  con- 
stitutional warrant,  and  for  such  a  declai-ation  and  distinc- 
tion as  this  there  can  be  no  constitutional  warrant  whatso- 
ever. 

The  declaration  of  the  first  sort  is  stiU  more  obviously  in- 
admissible so  long  as  the  Presbytery  to  which  such  a  teacher 
is  amenable,  regards  and  treats  him  as  orthodox.  At  this 
point  the  Assembly  is  powerless.  The  experience  of  the 
Southern  Church  in  the  case  of  Prof.  "Woodi'ow  ought  to  be 
a  sufficient  guide  and  warning  here.  It  is  not  needful  that 
the  person  implicated  be  already  undergoing  judicial  exam- 
ination before  the  only  body  on  earth  competent  of  pro- 
nouncing upon  him  ecclesiastically.  The  simple  fact  that 
he  stands  unimpeached  before  that  body,  is  enough  to  for- 
bid the  Assembly  from  assuming  any  judicial  prerogatives  in 
his  case.  No  difference  of  this  sort  can  be  recognized  in  our 
Form  of  Government,  between  one  minister  and  another, 
between  a  teacher  in  a  seminary  and  a  pastor  in  his  pulpit, 
and  any  attempt  to  set  up  such  a  distinction  can  only  end  in 
trouble.  In  a  word,  the  Assembly  is  absolutely  precluded 
by  our  constitution  from  pronouncing  an  opinion  by  mere 
resolution  upon  the  good  standing  of  even  the  humblest 
minister  in  our  Church. 

The  compact  of  1870  thus  betrays  its  weakness  in  what- 
ever aspect  it  may  be  regarded.  To  say  the  best  that  can 
be  said,  the  only  two  grovmds  on  which  the  Assembly  can 


112  UNION   SEMINARY    AND  THE   ASSEMBLY. 

possibly  act  under  it  are  doubtful  and  dangerous  grounds. 
It  loads  the  Clim-ch  with  a  responsibility  which  is  pleasant 
enough  so  long  as  there  is  no  occasion  to  wield  it,  but  which 
is  as  certain  as  fate  to  bring  in  trouble  wherever  there  is  fair 
room  for  doubt  as  to  either  the  capacity  or  the  orthodoxy  of 
any  candidate  for  professional  service.  The  experience  of 
the  current  year  will  inevitably  be  repeated  in  eveiy  like 
case  as  long  as  the  compact  lasts.  Differences  of  interpreta- 
tion as  to  its  intent  and  scope  will  always  arise,  as  they  have 
unhappily  sprung  up  in  this  instance.  Diversities  of  judg- 
ment and  more  or  less  dissatisfaction  with  the  result  will  al- 
ways make  their  appearance,  and  whatever  may  be  the  effect 
upon  the  seminary  involved,  the  Church  is  sure  to  suffer 
much  more  than  it  gains. 

Add  to  this  calm  statement  that  "  the  compact  of  1870  " 
was  no  legal  compact  at  all,  but  simply  a  friendly  agree- 
ment, and  Dr.  Morris'  argument  becomes  irresistible. 

Let  us  now  turn  to  Auburn.  This  seminary,  unlike 
Lane  and  Union,  was  already  under  ecclesiastical  control, 
namely,  that  of  four  adjacent  synods.  Here  also  there 
was  doubt  and  scruple  respecting  the  legal  aspect  of  the 
agreement  of  1870.  It  was  not  until  1873  that  Auburn 
consented  to  enter  into  the  arrangement.  The  following 
was  its  official  action  in  the  case : 

The  committee  to  whom  has  been  referred  the  question  as 
to  whether  the  proposal  of  the  General  Assembly  to  submit 
the  election  of  professors  in  the  seminary  to  the  control  of 
that  body  can  be  complied  with  without  a  change  of  the 
charter  of  this  institution,  would  respectfully  report,  that 
they  have  carefully  examined  said  chaiier,  and  sought  legal 
counsel  on  the  subject.  They  find  that  the  board  of  com- 
missioners is  invested  with  the  sole  and  ultimate  authority 
to  appoint  its  professors,  and  they  cannot  legally  delegate  this 
power  to  any  other  body.    They  are,  however,  convinced  of  the 


THE   ACTION   AT   DETROIT   AS   AN   EYE-OPENER.  113 

fact  tliat  they  may  in  their  primary  action  make  a  conditional 
appointment,  subject  to  the  approval  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly, and  that  the  right  of  such  approval  may  be  accorded  to 
and  recognized  from  that  body  without  necessarily  interfer- 
ing with  their  ultimate  authority.  The  committee  regard 
the  seminary  as  standing  in  an  organic  relation  to  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  through  its  commissioners,  who  are  themselves 
ecclesiastically  amenable  to  the  action  of  that  body,  and  that, 
therefore,  there  is  a  generic  propriety  in  submitting  their 
ajDpointments  conditionally  to  its  advisory  action. 

They  further  find  that  it  comes  within  the  sphere  of  power 
accorded  to  the  board  by  the  charter  that  they  make  what- 
ever by-laws  and  regulations  they  may  regard  as  essential 
for  the  jDrosperity  of  the  seminary  ;  and,  therefore,  deeming 
it  desirable  that  this  institution  be  classed  on  an  equal  basis 
with  others  of  a  like  character  as  under  the  patronage  and 
supervision  of  the  General  Assembly,  the  committee  would 
hereby  present  and  commend  for  adoption  by  the  board  the 
following  by-law,  viz.  :  "  That  hereafter  the  appointments  of 
professors  in  this  seminary  be  primarily  made  conditional 
upon  the  approval  of  the  General  Assembly,  and  that  such 
appointments  be  complete  and  authoritative  only  upon  secur- 
ing such  approval." — (Minutes  of  the  Board  of  Commission- 
ers of  Aubm-n  Seminary,  meeting  May  8, 1873.) 

(2).  But  while  at  Lane,  and,  later,  at  Auburn  also,  the 
agreement  of  1870  between  Union  Seminary  and  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  excited  at  the  time  serious  doubt,  and  was 
adopted  only  in  a  modified  form  upon  the  advice  of  able 
legal  counsel,  the  agreement  yet  met  with  general  acquies- 
cence as  a  "  suitable  arrangement."  For  twenty  years  it 
remained,  as  we  have  seen,  quiescent  and  undisputed.  No- 
body challenged  either  its  legality  or  its  expediency,  and 
this  for  the  simple  reason  that  the  power  with  which  it 
clothed  the  Assembly  was  never  used.  For  several  months 
before  the  meeting  of  the  Assembly  of  1891,  it  is  true,  the 


114  UNION   SEMINARY   AND   THE  ASSEMBLY. 

veto  power  was  widely  discussed  in  the  religious  papers, 
but  chiefly  as  to  its  direct  bearing  upon  the  case  of  Dr. 
Briggs,  not  as  to  its  legality  or  its  wisdom.  Only  after  the 
action  of  the  General  Assembly  were  men's  eyes  opened  to 
discern  its  real  character.  That  action,  as  is  apt  to  be  the 
case  with  all  unfair  and  arbitrary  exercise  of  power,  aroused 
thoughtful  public  opinion  in  a  high  degree,  and  precipi- 
tated, so  to  say,  conclusions  and  a  judgment  touching  the 
whole  matter  which  years  of  ordinary  discussion  could  not 
have  reached. 

The  public  reason  and  conscience,  under  certain  condi- 
tions, give  their  verdict  very  quickly,  and  in  a  way  not  to 
be  gainsaid.  I  believe  it  will  prove  to  have  been  so  in 
the  present  instance.  No  arguments  are  Hkely  to  shut 
again  the  eyes — and  their  name  is  legion — which  were 
opened  so  wide  by  the  action  at  Detroit.  Not  alone  Union 
Seminary  and  its  oldest  and  best  friends,  but  thousands  of 
the  best  and  most  discerning  friends  of  Clu-istian  scholar- 
ship and  reasonable  liberty  of  theological  inquiry  and  teach- 
ing throughout  the  country,  felt  that  a  hard  blow  had  been 
struck  at  a  great  interest  common  and  equally  dear  to  them 
all.  It  would  be  easy  to  illustrate  the  intensity  and  strength 
of  this  feeling  by  numberless  testimonies,  given  in  private 
letters  and  coming  from  all  parts  of  the  Union.  I  have 
myself  read  scores  of  such  letters,  some  of  them  written  by 
men  noted  for  their  fine  culture,  their  piety,  their  zeal  for 
the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus,  and  their  unusual  weight  of 
character.  Of  the  public  testimonies  and  protests  called 
forth  by  the  action  at  Detroit,  time  would  fail  me  to  speak 
at  length.  Two  or  three  only  must  suffice ;  and  I  give 
them  just  as  they  appeared,  without,  of  course,  holding 
myself  responsible  for  all  they  contain.  The  first  is  from 
the  pen  of  the  Rev.  C.  H.  Haydn,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  pastor  of 
the  First  Presbyterian  Church  of  Cleveland,  Ohio,  a  man 


THE   ACTION   AT  DETROIT   AS   AN   EYE-OPENER.    115 

whose  name  stands  for  whole-souled  devotion  to  the  king- 
dom of  Christ.  Dr.  Haydn  was  a  member  of  the  Assem- 
bly at  Detroit,  and  chairman  of  its  Standing  Committee  on 
Foreign  Missions.  Of  the  veto  of  Dr.  Briggs  he  said,  ad- 
dressing his  own  people : 

Had  the  Union  Seminary  acquiesced  in  this  veto,  /  question 
whether  a  twelvemonth  would  have  gone  by  before  men  in  at  least 
three  other  seminaries  would  have  been  called  to  account  in  one 
way  or  another,  and  liberty  wUhin  the  lines  of  Holy  Scripture 
would  have  had  a  set-back  from  which  it  toould  not  have  recov- 
ered in  a  quarter  of  a  century.  Princeton  would  have  tri- 
umphed all  along  the  line,  and  nothing  could  well  be  worse 
than  to  have  Princeton  dominate  the  thinking  of  the  Presby- 
terian Chm-ch.  Already,  to  my  view,  it  begins  to  dawn  that 
Princeton's  ecclesiastical  lawyer  has  oven-eached  himself,  and 
unmttingly  aided  the  very  cause  that  he  thought  to  put 
under  the  ban  of  the  Chm'ch. 

My  next  extract  is  from  a  letter  of  the  Rev.  Eobert  "W. 
Patterson,  D.  D.,  of  Chicago,  now  past  his  seven  and  seven- 
tieth year.  Dr.  Patterson  is  a  venerated  patriai'ch,  as  he 
was  for  more  than  a  generation  the  New  School  leader, 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  great  Northwest.  He 
was  moderator  of  the  General  Assembly  in  1859,  and  was 
also  a  member  of  the  New  School  branch  of  the  Joint 
Committee  on  Eeunion.  If  there  be  another  man  in  the 
whole  Interior  who  stands  higher  in  the  estimate  of  his 
ministerial  brethren,  or  whose  judgment  in  matters  relat- 
ing to  the  order  and  prosperity  of  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
is  entitled  to  greater  weight,  I  do  not  know  his  name. 
Here  is  what  Dr.  Patterson  says : 

I  am  distressed  about  our  seminaries.  The  plan  of  allow- 
ing the  General  Assembly  a  veto  on  appointments  is,  I  am 
persuaded,  unwise.  I  question  with  many  as  to  the  fitness 
of  Dr.  Briggs  for  the  place  to  which  he  was  elected  by  the 


116  UNION   SEMINAKY   AND   THE   ASSEMBLY. 

Union  directors,  but  I  tliink  it  very  unsafe  for  the  Assembly 
to  veto  the  action  of  sucli  a  board,  especially  when  a  trial  of 
the  professor-elect  is  pending.  It  must  necessarily  be  in  a 
great  measure  a  prejudgment  of  the  judicial  case.  And  in 
most  instances  of  veto,  a  judicial  case  will  be  likely  to  follow 
or  to  be  actually  pending. 

Besides,  it  is  not  clear  that  in  ordinary  cases  the  Assembly 
is  as  competent  a  judge  as  a  well-selected  board.  Moreover, 
if  the  Assembly  were  the  more  competent  body,  it  could  not 
fail  to  awaken  dangerous  antagonism  for  it  to  exercise  such 
authority.  It  is  not  like  a  veto  of  a  nomination  ;  it  is  a  veto 
of  an  appointment,  so  far  as  the  board  can  make  one,  and  it 
is,  therefore,  an  injurious  judgment  against  the  professor- 
elect  and  also  against  the  board  electing. 

And,  still  further,  it  is  likely  to  create  a  -svide  sympathy  for 
the  injured  parties,  and  give  currency  to  the  very  errors 
which  it  was  designed  to  prevent.  This  is  evidently  so  in 
the  present  case,  in  which  grossly  partisan  action  has  been 
taken.  The  proper  check  upon  unwise  appointments  is  the 
discipline  of  the  Church,  if  serious  errors  are  taught  by  the 
appointee.  The  New  School  Church  never  lodged  any  veto 
power  in  the  Assembly.  Such  power  ought  not  now  to  be 
continued  ;  it  is  virtually  the  trial  of  a  man  without  process 
and  without  forms  of  law.  Not  one  quotation  from  Dr. 
Briggs  was  made  in  the  debate  at  Detroit,  so  far  as  I  heard, 
and  no  reasons  were  given  in  the  final  judgment.  This  was 
monstrous. 

Along  with  this  emphatic  expression  of  opinion  I  will 
quote  some  passages  in  the  same  strain  from  a  private  letter 
of  Dr.  Patterson : 

I  have  not  liked  Dr.  Briggs'  utterances,  especially  the  tone 
of  them.  But  I  regard  the  action  of  Princeton  in  the  mat- 
ter as  a  startling  illustration  of  the  grievous  injustice  that 
will  always  be  liable  to  be  done  to  a  professor-elect  and  to  a 
seminary,  so  long  as  the  power  of  v  eto  remains  with  the  A 


THE  ACTION   AT   DETROIT  AS   AiN   EYE-OPENEK.    117 

sembly.  It  is  a  sort  of  lynch-law  condemnation  on  tecbnical- 
ity,  without  trial  and  with  no  reasons  responsibly  alleged,  but 

with  utterly  untrue  reasons  implied  or  assumed I  see 

no  escape  from  a  like  injustice  in  any  case  where  a  veto  can  be 
plausibly  demanded.  First,  get  up  a  clamor,  and  then  have 
a  one-sided  committee  appointed  to  report  that  something 
must  be  done  at  once,  or  the  Assembly  wiU  be  held  as  ap- 
proving, and  give  no  reasons,  leaving  every  man  to  sustain 
the  report  for  his  own  reasons,  or  on  the  ground  of  his  own 
prepossessions.  This  is  a  receipt  for  crushing  out  any  and 
every  appointee  that  happens  to  incur  popvilar  displeasiire  on 
a  question  about  which  the  Church  is  sensitive.  How  easy 
to  apply  the  guillotine  in  every  such  case !  and  if  the  candi- 
date for  decapitation  cannot  be  easUy  answered  on  the  main 

points,  the  motive  is  greater  to  dispatch  him  by  votes I 

have  written  simply  because  I  feel  Hke  it.  I  do  not  agree 
with  Dr.  Briggs  on  some  important  questions,  but  I  would 
not,  if  I  could,  overrule  the  directors  in  regard  to  any  such 
question,  and  no  more  would  I  concede  this  right  to  the 
Assembly.  We  cannot  afford  to  have  our  able  men  brushed 
aside  by  popular  clamor,  even  if  on  some  points  they  may 
have  gone  too  far.  K  they  become  heretics,  let  their  heresy 
be  judicially  proved.  But  let  not  the  Assembly  prejudge  indi- 
rectly its  future  disciplinary  action.  The  day  has  passed  for 
settling  critical  questions  by  votes  of  councils  or  assemblies. 
But  it  is  possible  to  distress  and  distract  a  whole  denomina- 
tion for  a  generation  by  attempting  this  impossibility.  The 
numbers  wiU  increase  of  those  who  will  say  with  Dr.  Van 
Dyke  :  "  If  we  cannot  have  orthodoxy  and  libei-ty  both,  let 
us  have  Hberty." 

I  will  give  one  more  testimony  and  protest.  It  is  from 
a  letter  of  the  Rev.  S.  M.  Hamilton,  D.D.,  addressed  to 
Dr.  Field,  editor  of  The  Evangelist,  and  dated  Louisville, 
Ky.,  June  5,  1891.  Dr.  Hamilton  for  more  than  half  a 
generation  was  pastor  of  the  old  Scotch  Church  in  Fourteenth 


118       UNION  sem:inary  and  the  assembly. 

St.,  New  York,  where  he  won  the  confidence,  respect,  and 
love  of  his  ministerial  brethren  and  of  all  the  churches  by 
his  charming  personal  quahties,  by  his  fine  scholarship,  and 
by  his  solid  Christian  character  and  services : 

The  outside  public  have  received  a  very  definite  impres- 
sion that  our  highest  ecclesiastical  court  has  acted  unfaii-ly 
and  unjustly  towards  one  of  our  foremost  Biblical  scholai's. 
The  issue  will  not  increase  the  respect  of  the  world  for  the 
Presbj-terian  Church.  She  has  suffered  immensely  more  than 
Dr.  Bi-iggs.  Thoughtful  men  are  saying — I  have  heard  them 
— that  our  Chui'ch  wiU  not  allow  her  scholars  to  make  a  thor- 
ough study  of  the  Bible  by  the  modem  scientific  methods 
unless  they  first  bind  themselves  to  come  to  no  conclusions, 
save  such  as  ai'e  acceptable  to  a  certain  theological  school  in 
the  Church.  Such  an  impression — and  it  exists  and  is  spread- 
ing— is  calamitous,  not  to  the  Church  only,  but  to  religion  it- 
self. Add  to  this  the  feeling  which  is  abroad,  that  the  Assem- 
bly has  condemned  an  eminent  professor  without  assigning 
any  reasons  therefor,  and  on  the  report  of  a  committee  not  a 
member  of  wliich  was  a  friend  of  the  professor  or  of  Union 
Seminary,  and  the  injury  to  the  reputation  of  our  Chiirch 
cannot  be  calculated. 

I  have  been  on  terms  of  intimate  friendship  with  Dr. 
Briggs  for  years.  I  have  lived  with  him,  I  have  walked  the 
mountains  with  him,  I  have  talked  with  him  for  hours  together, 
and  I  say  deliberately  that  he  has  done  more  to  make  the  Bible 
a  real  living  book  to  me,  the  true  Word  of  God,  than  aU  other 
ministers  and  teachers  I  have  known  in  the  whole  course  of 
my  life.  His  friendship  is  one  of  the  things  for  which  I  shall 
always  have  reason  to  be  thankful.  In  my  judgment  Dr. 
Briggs  is  the  most  inspiring  teacher  of  the  Bible  our  Church 
possesses.  No  vote  of  any  Assembly  can  impair  his  reputa- 
tion among  the  Biblical  scholars  of  Christendom. 

(3).  The  action  at  Detroit  was  an  eye-opener  with  regard  to 
the  unwisdom  of  trying  to  regulate  theological  opinion  and 


THE   ACTION   AT   DETROIT   AS   AN   EYE-OPENER.  119 

teaching  by  popular  vote.  The  instant  the  attempt  is  actually 
made,  its  futility  is  demonstrated.  I  doubt  if  the  vote  at 
Detroit  really  moved  theological  opinion  a  hair's  breadth. 
Nor  will  it  be  at  all  more  eifective  in  the  matter  of  theoloir- 
ical  instruction.  Unless  further  enlightened  respecting 
divine  truth  by  deeper  study  and  fresh  inspirations  of  the 
Eternal  Spirit,  Princeton,  and  Union,  and  Lane,  and  all  the 
rest,  will  continue  to  teach  in  1892  what  they  taught  in 
1890.  As  aforetime,  they  will  take  counsel  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture and  of  the  venerable  standards  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  as  also  of  the  old  creeds  of  Christendom.  They 
will  still  read  diligently  the  writings  of  the  great  masters  of 
divinity,  whether  of  ancient,  or  medieval,  or  later  ages  ;  they 
will  try  to  discern  the  signs  of  the  times ;  and  they  will  exer- 
cise themselves  in  working  out  more  fully  their  own  honest 
thought.  But  they  will  take  very  little  note  of  what  was  said, 
or  voted,  on  the  subject  at  Detroit.  When  in  1845,  at  Cin- 
cinnati, the  Old  School  General  Assembly,  led  by  some  of 
the  strongest  men  in  that  branch  of  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
decided  by  a  vote  of  173  to  8 — a  majority  not  of  7  to  1,  as  at 
Detroit,  but  of  more  than  20  to  1 — that  what  was  called 
"Romish  Baptism"  is  spurious  and  unchristian.  Dr.  Charles 
Hodge  of  Princeton,  in  spite  of  the  brilliant  Dr.  Thorn  well, 
and  of  Dr.  L.  N.  Rice,  and  of  Dr.  Junkin,  and  of  nearly 
the  whole  Assembly,  not  only  went  right  on  teaching  his  stu- 
dents the  old  Protestant  view,  but  he  attacked  the  decision 
of  the  Assembly  as  wrong  in  fact  and  false  in  doctrine, 
demonstrating,  with  most  cogent  reasoning,  that,  notwith- 
standing her  errors,  the  Church  of  liome  is  still  a  branch 
of  the  Christian  Church,  and  that  baptism  duly  adminis- 
tered by  her,  is  Christian  baptism.  Dr.  Hodge  knew  very 
well  that  if  such  questions  were  to  be  decided  by  a  majority 
vote  in  a  popular  assembly,  instead  of  being  decided  ac- 
cording to  the  truth  of  history  and  the  voice  of  Scripture, 
the  occupation  of  the  theological  professor  is  well-nigh  clean 


120  UNION   SEMINARY   AND   THE  ASSEMBLY. 

gone  forever.  This  veto  power  is  like  one  of  those  terrible 
pieces  of  new  ordnance  of  which  we  have  read  lately  so  much. 
It  is  not  only  a  most  formidable  instrument  for  destroy- 
ing an  enemy,  but  of  self-destruction  as  well,  unless  handled 
with  consummate  skill.  Setting  five  hundred  men,  mostly 
untrained  for  the  task,  to  firing  it  off  all  together,  even  un- 
der the  direction  of  an  ecclesiastical  expert,  is  extremely 
dangerous  and  against  all  the  lessons  of  even  worldly  pru- 
dence. 

Do  I  mean,  then,  that  it  is  no  function  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church  to  bear  faithful  witness  against  prevalent  er- 
rors in  doctrine  and  practice,  or,  if  necessary,  in  the  way  of 
godly  discipline,  to  put  upon  them  the  stamp  of  her  cen- 
sure and  condemnation  ?  No,  that  is  not  my  meaning.  It 
seems  to  me  one  of  the  highest  functions  of  a  church  of 
Jesus  Christ  to  bear  constant,  earnest  witness  for  Him  and 
His  truth,  and  to  put  the  mark  of  her  strong  disapproval 
upon  all  errors  contrary  thereto.  This  is  one  great  end  for 
which  the  Church  exists  in  the  world.  When  she  ceases  to 
be  a  witness-bearer  and  the  enemy  alike  of  false  doctrine 
and  evil  practice,  her  glory  is  departed.  The  question  is  : 
How  shall  she  best  fulfil  this  duty  ?  And  here  there  is  need 
of  the  wisest  discrimination,  of  large  experience,  of  the 
amplest  knowledge,  of  much  self-restraint,  and  of  Christian 
justice,  candor,  and  magnanimity  in  their  finest  expression. 

It  is  far  from  my  meaning,  I  repeat,  that  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  or  any  other  church  of  Christ,  is  not  bound  to  hold 
fast  to  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints ;  to  stand  up 
for  soundness  both  of  doctrine  and  morals ;  to  bear  wit- 
ness against  error ;  and  to  be  very  jealous  for  the  honor  of 
God  and  His  inspired  oracles.  No  church  can  here  exceed 
the  measure  of  her  duty.  Nor  do  I  in  the  least  question 
that  the  Presbyterian  Church,  in  the  performance  of  this 
solemn  duty,  may  often  speak  and   act  most  effectually 


A   WORD   IN   CONCLUSION.  121 

through  the  voice  and  votes  of  the  representative  assembl}'. 
The  popular  voice  and  vote,  thus  expressed,  is  a  ruHng 
principle  in  our  American  system  of  republican  govern- 
ment; and  it  is  a  ruling  principle  no  less  in  American 
Fresbjterianism — the  source  in  large  measure  of  its  won- 
derful elasticity,  fi-eedom,  and  working  power.  Nobody 
shall  surpass  me  in  admiring  it  and  its  splendid  achieve- 
ments. 

But  alike  in  the  civil  sphere  and  in  that  of  religion  there 
are  some  things,  which  in  their  very  nature,  belong  to  the 
domain  and  jurisdiction,  not  of  the  many,  but  rather  of  the 
select  few.  There  are  questions  in  the  civil  order  which 
the  judges  of  the  land,  not  the  legislators,  alone  are  author- 
ized and  competent  to  decide.  And  so  in  the  religious 
sphere  there  are  matters  which  only  learned  divines  and 
scholars — specially  trained,  chosen,  and  set  apart  for  the 
purpose — are  qualified  to  pass  judgment  upon.  Such,  for 
example,  are  many  of  the  questions  raised  by  what  is  called 
the  higher  or  literary  criticism  of  the  Bible.  No  popular 
vote,  however  honest  rnd  intelligent,  can  decide  them  ;  nor 
are  ordinary  scholars,  however  learned,  competent  to  decide 
them.  They  must  be  decided,  if  at  all,  by  the  ablest  sort 
of  trained  minds,  just  as  there  are  questions  in  law,  in 
finance,  in  every  department  of  science,  which  only  experts 
of  the  highest  class  are  qualified  to  settle  for  us. 

(^).  A  word  in  conclusimi. 

I  have  thus  endeavored  to  consider  the  action  at  Detroit 
in  the  case  of  Dr.  Briggs  in  its  bearing  upon  Union  Semi- 
nary and  upon  the  Presbyterian  Church.  It  has  been  my 
aim  to  tell  the  truth,  so  far  as  possible,  and  nothing  but  the 
truth.  And  it  has  been  my  aim,  also,  to  do  this  in  a  frank 
and  Christian  way.  Certainly,  it  would  have  been  much 
easier  to  write  in  a  freer  style.    If  my  language  savors  now 


122        unio:n-  seminary  and  the  assembly. 

and  then  of  severity,  or  even  ridicule,  it  is  because  the  truth 
seems  to  me  to  demand  such  lang^uage,  No  reasonable  man 
could  have  supposed  that  the  friends  of  Union  Seminary 
were  going  to  keep  silent,  or  that  when  they  did  speak  they 
would  speak  with  bated  breath.  If  trained  in  no  special 
awe  of  a  General  Assembly,  they  do  stand  in  awe  of  God 
and  His  truth,  of  Christian  justice,  and  of  that  glorious 
liberty  wherewith  their  divine  Master  has  made  them  free. 
What  then,  in  view  of  the  whole  situation,  ought  to 
be  done  ?  It  is  not  for  me  to  answer  this  question  further 
than  to  say,  that,  in  my  opinion,  it  is  high  time  for  the 
alumni  and  friends  of  Union  Seminary  to  come  to  a  good 
understanding  among  themselves,  to  act  in  concert,  and  to 
adopt  such  measures  as  shall  give  the  whole  world  assurance 
of  their  determination  to  join  hands  with  the  Board  of 
directors  and  Faculty  of  Union  Seminary  in  maintaining 
the  character,  honor,  and  chartered  rights  of  the  In- 
stitution. 

Whatever  prejudice  or  suspicion  against  Union  Seminary 
prevails  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  is,  as  I  believe,  largely 
the  efiect  of  ignorance  or  misapprehension.  Union  Semi- 
nary stands  firm  on  her  original  foundations  as  an  institu- 
tion of  Christian  theology  in  the  service  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  and  of  the  Church  Universal.  Taking  the  inspired 
Word  of  God  as  her  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  she  is  striv- 
ing in  all  things  for  the  faith  and  furtherance  of  the  Gos- 
pel ;  first  in  our  own  land,  and  then  over  all  the  earth.  These 
are  her  ambitions,  and  she  has  no  other.  With  every  other 
school  of  divinity,  of  whatever  name,  she  desires  to  keep 
step  to  the  music  of  the  whole  church  militant  in  fighting 
the  battles  of  truth  and  righteousness,  here  and  everywhere. 
Especially  does  she  desire  to  march  and  fight  in  fellowship 
with  all  other  seminaries  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  She 
is  ready  to  say  to  them,  in  the  words  of  Henry  B.  Smith, 


A   WORD   IN   CONCLUSION.  123 

— words  penned  before  the  reunion,  but  still  fresh  and  true 
as  ever : 

Let  us  advance  with  open  brow  to  meet  the  greater  ques- 
tions which  are  fast  advancing  to  meet  us.  Let  us  not  make 
so  much  account  of  Old  School  and  New  School ;  and  even 
if  we  believe  the  substance  of  the  Old  is  better,  let  us  not 
deny  that  the  earnestness,  the  philosophic  spirit,  the  advanc- 
ing movement,  the  wider  aims  of  the  New,  are  of  inestimable 
good.  Who  can  so  afford  to  be  patient  as  the  orthodox, 
who  know  that  the  right  faith  will  in  the  end  siu-ely  triumph. 
Let  us  eschew  the  arts  of  intrigue,  of  defamation,  and  innu- 
endo. These  are  easily  learned.  They  are  the  offspring  of 
fear  or  of  hate.  They  show  a  timorous  or  a  dogmatic  spirit. 
Let  us  not  deny  until  we  understand,  or  insult  feelings  be- 
fore we  know  their  reason,  for  it  is  easier  to  be  extreme  than 
to  be  candid,  to  denounce  than  to  examine.  Li  the  spirit  of 
love  and  wisdom  let  us  maintain  cogency  of  argument,  energy 
of  faith,  and  urgency  of  zeal. 


APPENDIX. 


THE  ESTABLISHMENT  OF  THE   EDWARD   ROBINSON  CHAIP   OF  BIBLICAL 

THEOLOGY. 

At  the  regular  meeting  of  the  Board  of  Du-ectors  of  the 
Union  Theological  Seminary  in  the  city  of  New  York,  held 
November  11,  1890,  the  following  preamble  and  resolution 
were  adopted  by  a  unanimous  vote  : 

Whereas,  The  Honorable  Charles  Butler,  LL.D.,  President  of  the 
Board  of  Directors  of  this  Seminary,  has  made  provision  for  a  perma- 
nent fund  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  and  endowing  a  chair  in 
this  Seminary,  to  be  called  the  Edward  Robinson  Chair  of  Biblical 
Theology : 

Now  THEREFORE,  Rcsolved,  That  a  new  professorship  shall  be  and 
is  hereby  created,  which  shall  be  called  the  "Edward  Robinson 
Chair  of  Biblical  Theology";  that  the  income  of  the  endowment  of 
one  hundred  thousand  dollars  given  to  this  Seminary  by  the  said 
Charles  Butler  in  the  manner  mentioned  in  his  bond,  dated  April  25, 
1890,  shall  be  applied  solely  to  the  support  of  sa:id  chair,  according  to 
the  provisions  of  said  bond. 

The  President  of  the  Faculty  suggested  that  the  Board,  in 
courtesy,  should  ask  Dr.  Butler  to  express  to  us  freely  his 
wishes  with  reference  to  the  action  just  taken. 

Thereupon  President  Butler  addressed  the  Board  of  Direct- 
ors as  follows  : 

"The  formal  establishment  by  the  Board  of  'The  EJward 
Kobinson  Chair  of  Biblical  Theology '  fulfils  the  object  de- 
sii-ed  in  the  provision  which  I  have  made  for  its  endowment, 
I  beg  to  express  my  satisfaction  and  gratitude  for  this  action. 
It  is  in  accord  with  the  views  of  the  distinguished  Christian 
(124) 


APPENDIX.  126 

scholar  in  whose  memory  the  chair  is  founded.  In  a  letter  to 
the  Board,  dated  January  20, 1837,  accepting  the  Professorship 
of  Sacred  Literature,  he  said  :  '  The  Constitution  properly 
requires  every  Professor  to  declare  that  he  believes  the  Scrii^- 
tures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  to  be  the  Word  of 
God,  the  only  infaUible  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  This  is 
placing  the  Bible  in  its  true  position  as  the  only  foundation 
of  Christian  theology.  It  follows  as  a  necessary  consequence 
that  the  study  of  the  Bible,  as  taught  in  the  department  of 
Biblical  Literatiu'e,  must  be  the  foundation  of  all  right  the- 
ological education.'  This  new  Chair  of  Biblical  Theology 
seems  to  me  to  realize  the  sentiment  embodied  in  this  quota- 
tion, in  a  form  which,  if  he  were  now  present  with  us,  would 
receive  his  benediction.  It  embalms  his  memory  indissolu- 
bly  with  the  Hfe  of  this  Seminary,  and  will  ever  be  an  inspi- 
ration to  its  students  in  their  '  search  of  the  Scriptures.' 

"  In  regard  to  the  incumbent  of  this  Chair,  I  avail  of  the 
courtesy  of  the  Board  to  exj)ress  my  wish  that  it  may  be  one 
who  sat  as  a  pupil  at  the  feet  of  that  eminent  teacher,  and  I 
regard  it  as  a  felicity  to  the  Seminary  that  there  is  one  here 
who  has  been  trained  within  its  walls,  and  who,  by  his  ripe 
scholarship  and  purity  of  character  in  Christian  faith  and 
practice,  has  won  the  confidence  and  affection  of  his  associate 
Professors,  of  this  Board  of  Du-ectors,  and  of  the  students 
who  have  come  under  his  teaching  during  these  years  of 
faithful  and  devoted  service. 

"From  what  I  have  said,  you  will  anticipate  that  my 
wishes  will  be  fully  gratified  in  the  appointment  of  the  Rev. 
Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  as  eminently  qualified  to  fill  this 
Chair.  In  this  expression  of  preference,  it  gives  me  the 
greatest  pleasure  to  say  that  I  do  but  voice  the  views  and 
wishes  of  our  late  revered  President  of  the  Faculty,  Roswell 
D.  Hitchcock.     Dr.  Briggs  was  his  choice  for  this  Chair. 

"  I  cannot  doubt  that  the  highest  interests  of  this  Semi- 
nary, and,  what  is  more,  those  of  the  Redeemer's  kingdom 
on  earth,  will  be  promoted  by  this  realization  of  the  plans  of 


126  APPENDIX. 

these  two  Christian  scholars,  both  as  regards  the  foundation 
of  the  Chair  and  the  selection  of  the  suggested  incumbent." 

THE   APPOINTMENT    OF    THE   INCUMBENT. 

At  the  conclusion  of  President  Butler's  address,  Henry 
Day,  Esq.,  offered  the  following  resolution,  which  was  unan- 
imously adopted  : 

Resolved,  That  Professor  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  be  transferred 
from  the  Davenport  Professorship  of  Hebrew  and  the  Cognate  Lan- 
guages to  the  Edward  Robinson  Chair  of  Biblical  Theology. 

Professor  Briggs,  having  been  duly  advised  of  the  action 
a'bove  recorded,  addressed  a  communication  to  the  Board, 
under  date  of  January  7,  1891,  accepting  the  new  Chair  to 
which  he  had  been  transferred.     It  is  as  follows  : 

120  West  93d  St.,  New  Yokk, 
January  7,  1891. 

Gentlemen  of  the  Board  of  Directors  of  the  Union  Theological 
Seminary,  New  York: 

I  thank  you  for  the  mark  of  confidence  expressed  in  your 
choice  of  me  to  fill  the  Edward  Eobinson  Professorship  of 
Biblical  Theology.  There  is  no  Chair  that  so  well  suits  my 
tastes  and  my  studies  for  the  past  twenty-five  years.  Under 
the  advice  of  the  Faculty,  I  have  been  building  up  the  depart- 
ment of  Biblical  Theology  for  some  years  past.  But  I  had 
reached  the  limit  of  new  work.  I  could  not  advance  further 
until  relieved  of  the  Hebrew  work.  In  accepting  the  new 
Chair,  I  propose  to  push  the  work  of  the  department  rapidly 
forward,  and  to  cover  the  whole  ground  of  the  Chair  at  as 
early  a  date  as  possible.  I  give  over  the  work  of  the  Hebrew 
Chair  to  my  pupil,  colleague,  and  friend.  Dr.  Brown,  with 
confidence,  that  building  on  the  foundations  I  have  laid,  he 
will  make  marked  improvement  upon  my  work. 

Biblical  Theology  is,  at  the  present  time,  the  vantage  ground 
for  the  solution  of  those  important  problems  in  religion,  doc- 


APPENDIX.  127 

trine,  and  morals  that  are  compelling  the  attention  of  the  men 
of  om-  times.  The  Bible  is  the  Word  of  God,  and  its  author- 
ity is  divine  authority  that  determines  the  faith  and  life  of 
men.  Biblical  scholars  have  been  long  held  in  bondage  to 
ecclesiasticism  and  dogmatism.  But  modern  Biblical  criti- 
cism has  won  the  battle  of  freedom.  The  accumulations  of 
long  periods  of  traditional  speculation  and  dogmatism  have 
been  in  large  measure  removed,  and  the  Bible  itself  stands 
before  the  men  of  our  time  in  a  commanding  position,  such 
as  it  never  has  enjoyed  before.  On  all  sides  it  is  asked,  not 
what  do  the  creeds  teach,  what  do  the  theologians  say,  what 
is  the  authority  of  the  Church,  but  what  does  the  Bible  itself 
teach  us  ?  It  is  the  office  of  Biblical  Theology  to  answer  this 
question.  It  is  the  culmination  of  the  work  of  Exegesis.  It 
rises  on  a  complete  induction  through  all  the  departments  of 
Biblical  study  to  a  comprehensive  grasp  of  the  Bible  as  a 
whole,  in  the  unity  and  variety  of  the  sum  of  its  teaching. 
It  draws  the  line  with  the  teaching  of  the  Bible.  It  fences 
off  from  the  Scriptures  all  the  speculations,  all  the  dogmatic 
elaborations,  all  the  doctrinal  adaptations  that  have  been 
made  in  the  history  of  doctrine  in  the  Church.  It  does  not 
deny  their  propriety  and  importance,  but  it  insists  upon  the 
three-fold  distinction  as  necessary  to  truth  and  theological 
honesty,  that  the  theology  of  the  Bible  is  one  thing,  the  only 
infallible  authority  ;  the  theology  of  the  creeds  is  another 
thing,  having  simply  ecclesiastical  authority  ;  and  the  theol- 
ogy of  the  theologians,  or  Dogmatic  Theology,  is  a  thii'd 
thing,  which  has  no  more  authority  than  any  other  system  of 
human  construction.  It  is  well  known  that  untH  quite  recent 
times,  and  even  at  present  in  some  quarters,  the  creeds  have 
lorded  it  over  the  Scriptures,  and  the  dogmaticians  have 
lorded  it  over  the  creeds,  so  that  in  its  last  analysis  the  au- 
thority in  the  Church  has  been,  too  often,  the  authority  of 
certain  theologians.  Now,  Biblical  Theology  aims  to  limit 
itself  strictly  to  the  theology  of  the  Bible  itself.  Biblical 
theologians  are  fallible  men,  and  doubtless  it  is  true,  that 


128  APPENDIX. 

they  err  in  their  interpretation  of  the  Scriptui'es,  as  have 
others  ;  but  it  is  the  aim  of  the  disciphne  to  give  the  theol- 
ogy of  the  Bible  pure  and  simple  ;  and  the  inductive  and 
historical  methods  that  determine  the  working  of  the  depart- 
ment are  certainly  favorable  to  an  objective  presentation  of 
the  subject,  and  are  unfavorable  to  the  intnision  of  subject- 
ive fancies  and  circumstantial  considerations.  It  will  be  my 
aim,  so  long  as  I  remain  in  the  Chair,  to  accomplish  this  ideal 
as  far  as  possible.  Without  fear  or  favor  I  shall  teach  the 
truth  of  God's  "Word  as  I  find  it.  The  theology  of  the  Bible 
is  much  simpler,  richer,  and  grander  than  any  of  the  creeds 
or  dogmatic  systems.  These  have  been  built  upon  select  por- 
tions of  the  Bible,  and  there  is  a  capriciousness  of  selection 
in  them  all.  But  Biblical  Theology  makes  no  selection  of 
texts — it  uses  the  entire  Bible  in  all  its  passages,  and  in  every 
single  passage,  giving  each  its  place  and  importance  in  the 
unfolding  of  divine  revelation.  To  Biblical  Theology  the 
Bible  is  a  mine  of  untold  wealth  ;  treasures,  new  and  old,  are 
in  its  storehouses  ;  all  its  avenues  lead,  in  one  way  or  anoth- 
er, to  the  presence  of  the  Hving  God  and  the  divine  Saviour. 

The  work  of  Biblical  Theology  is  conducted  on  such  a 
comprehensive  study  of  the  Bible,  that  while  the  Professor 
builds  upon  a  thorough  study  of  the  original  texts,  his  class 
must  use  their  English  Bibles.  A  thorough  study  of  the 
English  Bible  is  necessarily  included  in  the  course.  If  the 
plan  of  the  work  is  carried  out,  the  student  will  accompany 
his  Professor  through  the  entire  English  Bible  dm^ing  his 
Seminary  course,  and  will  be  taught  to  expound  a  large  num- 
ber of  the  most  impoiiant  passages  in  the  light  of  all  the 
passages  leading  up  to  them. 

In  conclusion,  allow  me  to  express  my  gratitude  to  the 
venerable  President  of  the  Board  of  Directors  for  the  interest 
he  has  ever  taken  in  my  work,  for  the  honor  he  has  shown 
me  in  nominating  me  for  the  Chair  he  so  generously  founded, 
and  for  attaching  to  the  Chair,  with  such  modesty  and  consid- 
eration, the  name  of  Edward  Robinson,  my  honored  teacher, 


APPENDIX.  129 

the  greatest  name  on  the  roll  of  Biblical  scholars  of  America, 
and  the  most  widely  known  and  honored  of  her  professors. 
I  shall  regard  it  as  my  high  calling  and  privilege  to  build  on 
his  foundations,  and  to  advance  the  work  that  he  carried  on 
as  far  as  it  can  be  advanced  in  the  circumstances  of  our  time. 
The  names  of  Edward  Robinson  and  Charles  Butler  will  be 
entwined  into  a  bond  of  double  strength  to  sustain  me  in  the 
delicate  and  difficult  work  that  I  now  undertake  to  do. 

Faithfully, 

C.  A.  BEiaas. 

n 

THE   INAUGURATION. 

Tuesday  Evening,  Jan.  20,  1891. 

President  Charles  Butler,  LL.D.  presided.  After  devo- 
tional exercises,  at  the  request  of  Mr.  Butler,  the  President 
of  the  Faculty  made  a  brief  preliminary  statement,  as 
follows ; 

"  As  has  been  announced,  last  May  the  President  of  the 
Board  of  Directors  of  the  Union  Theological  Seminary, 
Charles  Butler,  LL.D.,  provided  for  the  endowment  of  a  new 
Chair  in  the  sum  of  $100,000. 

"  On  the  basis  of  this  munificent  gift,  at  the  recent  meet- 
ing of  the  Board,  the  new  Professorship  was  formally  estab- 
lished, to  be  known,  in  accordance  with  the  request  of  Pres- 
ident Butler,  as  The  Edward  Robinson  Professorship  of  Biblical 
Tneology.  This  was  designed  by  Mr.  Butler  to  be  a  memorial 
of  his  long-time  friend,  the  late  Edward  Robinson,  D.D., 
LL.D.,  the  first  Professor  of  Sacred  Literature  in  this  insti- 
tution, who  honored  that  Chair  and  this  Seminary  by  his  long 
and  distinguished  service  from  1837  to  1863. 

"  The  President  of  the  Board  suggested  that  it  would  be 
in  accord  with  his  own  wishes  and  with  those  of  his  friend, 
the  late  President  Roswell  D.  Hitchcock,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  if  the 
Board  should  transfer  the  Rev.  Professor  Charles  A.  Briggs, 


130  APPENDIX. 

D.D.,  to  the  new  Chair  just  established.  By  a  unanimous 
vote  the  Board  at  once  adopted  the  suggestion  of  their  Pres- 
ident, and  transferred  Professor  Briggs  from  the  '  Davenport 
Chair  of  Hebrew  and  the  Cognate  Languages '  to  the  '  Echcard 
Robinson  Chair  of  Biblical  Theology.'  Dr.  Briggs,  having  sig- 
nified his  acceptance  of  this  transfer,  his  inauguration  will 
now  take  place." 

President  Butler  addressed  Professor  Briggs  as  follows  : 

"  On  behalf  of  the  Board  of  Directors,  and  in  accordance 
with  the  Constitution  of  the  '  Union  Theological  Seminary  in 
the  City  of  New  York,'  I  call  upon  you  to  '  make  and  subscribe ' 
the  '  declaration '  required  of  each  member  of  the  Faculty  of 
this  institution." 

Thereupon  Professor  Briggs  made  the  'declaration'  as 
follows : 

"  /  believe  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  to  be 
the  Word  of  God,  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice  ; 
and  I  do  now,  in  the  presence  of  God  and  the  Directors  of  this 
Seminary,  solemnly  and  sincerely  receive  and  adopt  the  Westmin- 
ster Confession  of  Faith,  as  containing  the  system  of  doctrine 
taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures.  I  do  also,  in  like  manner,  ap- 
prove of  the  Presbyterian  Form  of  Government ;  and  I  do  sol- 
emnly promise  that  I  will  not  teach  or  inculcate  anything  which 
shall  appear  to  me  to  be  subversive  of  the  said  system  of  doctrines, 
or  of  the  principles  of  said  Form  of  Government,  so  long  as  1 
shall  continue  to  be  a  Professor  in  the  Seminary." 

Thereupon  President  Butler  said  : 

"  In  the  name  of  the  Board  of  Directors,  I  declare  that 
Professor  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  is  inaugurated  as  the 
Incumbent  of  the  Edward  Robinson  Chair  of  Biblical  The- 
ology. 

"  On  behalf  of  the  Board  of  Directors,  the  Charge  to  Pro- 
fessor Briggs  wiU  now  be  delivered  by  the  member  of  the 
Board  d\ily  appointed  for  this  service, — the  Kev,  David  R. 
Frazer,  D.D.,  the  pastor  of  the  First  Presbyterian  Church  of 
Newark,  N.  J." 


APPENDIX.  131 

the  charge. 

My  deae  Brother  Briqgs  : 

Before  attempting  to  discharge  the  duty  which,  by  your 
kind  consideration,  has  been  devolved  upon  me,  permit  me 
to  tender  my  heartfelt  congratulations  :  First,  upon  the  estab- 
Hshment  of  the  Edward  Robinson  Chair  of  Biblical  Theol- 
ogy ;  a  consummation  so  devoutly  wished  for  alike  by  youi-- 
self  and  by  our  revered  Hitchcock.  We  all  share  in  3-our 
joy,  and  recognize  the  new  departure  as  a  long  and  a  right 
step  in  advance  in  the  history  of  our  Institution. 

In  the  orderings  of  God's  providence  every  age  has  its 
own  peculiar  problem  to  solve,  the  solution  being  wrought 
out  from  the  standpoint  of  its  own  pressing  needs.  It  is  a 
marked  characteristic  of  our  day  that  the  Bible  is  now  studied 
as  never  before  in  the  world's  history,  and  the  establishment 
of  this  new  department  is  in  the  line  of  this  development,  and 
is  answerable  to  this  modern  demand.  For,  if  I  understand 
aright  the  function  of  Bibhcal  Theology,  it  does  not  conduct 
a  simple,  grammatical  exercise  ;  it  does  not  discuss  the  vari- 
ous textual  readings  ;  it  does  not  study  the  opinions  of  the 
Fathers  or  the  deliverances  of  the  Church  ;  it  does  not  for- 
mulate a  body  of  systematic  divinity  grouped  about  some 
chosen  central  principle.  These  are  important  and  legiti- 
mate topics  of  study,  hence  are  properly  cared  for  in  our 
curriculum.  They  will  doubtless  be  very  helpful  as  external 
aids  in  the  prosecution  of  the  work  of  this  Chair,  but  the 
peculiar  province  of  Bibhcal  Theology  is  to  study  the  Word  ; 
to  detennine  what  God  intends  to  say  in  His  Word,  and  then 
to  formulate  these  hallowed  teachings. 

Such  being  its  province,  I  need  not  pause  to  show  that 
Biblical  Theology  is  the  normal  response  to  that  modei'u 
critical  spirit  which  refuses  to  accept  anything  ui^on  the 
basis  of  authority,  and  insists  upon  tracing  everything  back 
to  its  genetic  principle  and  its  efficient  cause.  Neither  need 
I  tarry  to  discriminate  sharply  and  accurately  between  the 


132  APPENDIX. 

functions  of  Biblical  and  Systematic  Theology.  If  you,  my 
dear  brother,  have  any  especial  interest  in  or  desire  for  in- 
formation on  this  general  subject,  I  would  respectfully  refer 
you  to  a  work  on  "  Biblical  Study,"  which  is  published  by 
the  Scribners,  and  was  written  by  one  who  has  served  long 
and  well  in,  and  has  just  been  transferred  from,  "the  Dav- 
enport Professorship  of  Hebrew  and  the  Cognate  Languages  " 
in  this  Institution  ;  and,  if  you  are  not  acquainted  with  the 
work,  I  can  assure  you  that  the  time  spent  in  its  perusal  will 
not  be  wasted,  for  you  will  find  therein  an  admii-able  and 
exhaustive  discussion  of  the  subject. 

But  I  want  to  congratulate  you,  secondly,  upon  the  fact 
that  you  are  to  be  the  incumbent  of  the  new  Chair,  a  position 
for  which  you  are  pre-eminently  qualified  by  reason  of  the 
pecuHar  character  of  your  past  studies.  I  am  very  well 
aware  that  you  would  much  prefer  to  have  me  discuss  the 
general  topic  of  BibHcal  Theology,  and  to  dwell  upon  the 
claims  it  has  to  a  place  in  our  curriculum,  rather  than  to 
hint  the  name  of,  or  make  any  reference  to  the  Professor  who 
is  to  occupy  the  new  Chair.  But  if  anything  of  a  personal 
character  should  be  said,  please  remember,  my  brother,  you 
have  no  one  to  blame  save  yourself,  since,  passing  by  abler 
men,  you  have  kindly  insisted  that  your  old  friend  and  class- 
mate should  deliver  the  Charge,  as  you  enter  upon  the  awful 
responsibilities  of  your  new  position.  And  as  the  class  spirit 
asserts  itself,  I  will  say,  despite  your  unspoken  protest,  that 
the  class  of  '64  is  proud  of  its  representative  ;  that  it  rejoices 
in  your  well-deserved  success,  and  that  it  appropriates  to  it- 
self a  peculiar  glory  by  virtue  of  the  events  of  this  hour. 
Little  did  we  dream,  when  we  sat  at  the  feet  of  that  honored 
man  whose  name  gives  dignity  to  your  new  Chair,  as  also  at 
the  feet  of  those  other  scholarly  and  godly  men,  Henry  B. 
Smith,  Thomas  H.  Skinner,  Koswell  D.  Hitchcock,  and  Henry 
H.  Hadley,  men  whose  presence  was  a  benediction,  whose 
instruction  was  an  inspiration,  whose  memories  are  revered 
and  hallowed,  that  there  was  among  us,  going  in  and  out 


APPENDIX.  133 

just  as  we  went  in  and  out,  one  who  was  destined  to  sit  in 
Gamaliel's  seat  and  to  honor  the  exalted  jDosition  by  his 
scholarly  attainments.  Yet  such  was  the  fact,  and  although 
you  wish  I  would  not  say  it,  stiU,  as  your  classmate  and  on 
behalf  of  the  class  thus  signally  honored,  I  tender  you  our 
warmest  and  heartiest  congratulations. 

And  I  propose  saying  still  further,  since  I  betray  no  confi- 
dence by  the  declaration,  that  it  would  have  greatly  rejoiced 
your  heart  and  would  have  wonderfully  inspirited  you  for 
your  work  could  you  have  heard  the  cordial,  tender,  and  ap- 
preciative words  with  which  our  venerable  and  venerated 
President  of  the  Board  of  Directors  (who  is  also  the  kind 
and  generous  patron  through  whose  munificence  the  new 
Chair  has  been  endowed,  "  Serus  in  coelum  redeas  "),  placed 
your  name,  the  only  name  placed  in  nomination  for  the 
position. 

And  I  am  sure  you  would  have  been  more  than  pleased 
could  you  have  witnessed  the  unanimity  with  which  the 
Directors  ratified  the  nomination  and  transferred  you  from 
the  Davenport  Chair  of  Hebrew  to  the  Edward  Kobinson 
Chair  of  Biblical  Theology.  I  congratulate  you  that  the 
honored  and  revered  Founder  of  the  department  wanted  you 
in  the  department  which  he  founded,  and  also  upon  the  fact 
that  you  enter  upon  your  new  work  in  the  enjoyment  of  the 
fullest  confidence,  respect,  and  love  of  the  Directors  of  this 
Seminary. 

But  I  may  not  forget  that  this  is  your  hour.  Inasmuch 
as  I  cannot  hope  to  impart  any  instruction  respecting  the 
peculiar  and  practical  duties  of  your  new  position,  I  would 
be  content  to  let  these  congratulatory  words  take  the  place 
of  the  more  formal  charge.  In  order,  however,  to  meet  the 
requirements  of  my  appointment,  and  to  stir  up  your  pure 
mind  by  way  of  remembrance,  I  charge  you  : 

Fu'st.  To  have  clear,  well-settled,  and  acctu'ately  defined 
views  of  the  nature,  the  scope,  and  the  design  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures. 


134  APPENDIX. 

The  Bible  is  to  be  your  text-book,  and  the  Bible  claims  to 
be  the  book  of  God.  If  this  high  claim  cannot  be  main- 
tained ;  if  the  Bible  be  not  the  book  of  God,  as  verily  as 
Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God,  then  is  it  unworthy  of  our 
confidence.  That  Word  which  was  in  the  beginning  with 
God  and  was  God,  and  which  in  the  fulness  of  time  began 
to  be  flesh,  was,  as  the  Incarnate  Word,  the  God-man,  very 
God  and  very  Man.  We  do  not  understand  this  "  gi-eat  mys- 
tery of  godhness,  God  manifest  in  the  flesh."  We  do  not 
attempt  to  explain  it,  but  we  accept  it,  we  believe  it,  we  rest 
our  hopes  of  life,  here  and  hereafter,  upon  it.  And  upon 
this  same  basis  we  can  accept  the  Word  written.  It  also  is 
an  incarnation.  Great  is  the  mystery  of  Eevelation,  God 
manifesting  His  thought  in  the  forms  of  human  speech. 
Since  holy  men  of  old  spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the 
Holy  Ghost,  the  Divine  and  human  elements  are  co-ordinated 
in  the  Word  written  as  well  as  in  the  Word  Incarnated.  We 
must  recognize  the  Divine  and  human  factors  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  assign  a  legitimate  place  to  each  and  to  both,  but  I 
need  not  charge  you,  my  dear  brother,  to  bear  in  ceaseless 
remembrance  the  fact,  that  just  in  the  proportion  that  the 
Divine  element  is  eliminated  or  is  abnormally  subordinated 
to  the  human,  is  the  authority  of  the  Bible  circumscribed 
and  the  power  of  the  Bible  abridged.  You  will  never  forget 
that  you  have  God's  Word  for  your  text-book,  and  you  will 
never  fail  to  teach  it  as  the  very  Word  of  God. 

The  scope  of  BibUcal  instruction  is  clearly  set  forth  on  the 
sacred  page.  Great  mischief  is  often  wrought  by  the  notion 
that  the  Bible  aims  to  cover  the  whole  sphere  of  human 
knowledge,  and  that  its  authority  is  lessened  by  the  conces- 
sion that  there  are  some  things  which  can  be  comprehended 
without  its  aid.  We  surely  do  not  need  the  Bible  to  teach 
us  that  two  and  two  make  four,  or  that  the  whole  is  greater 
than  any  of  its  parts.  The  Holy  Word  has  a  distinct  mission 
and  a  definite  aim.  It  does  not  come  to  us  as  a  teacher  of 
physics  or  of  metaphysics,  but  as  a  revelation  :  as  a  revela- 


ArPENDTX.  135 

tion  of  God  :  as  a  revelation  of  God  to  man  :  as  a  revelation 
of  God  to  man  concerning  the  highest  and  the  dearest  moral 
interests  of  man,  alike  for  time  and  for  eternity.  It  comes 
to  man,  not  primarily  to  reason,  but  to  reveal,  and  to  reveal 
those  high  themes,  which,  by  necessity  of  being,  transcend 
the  ordinary  processes  of  human  thought.  While  pervaded 
with  an  air  of  simpHcity  and  honesty  and  truthfulness,  it 
comes  not  primarily  to  persuade,  but  to  command,  and  to 
command,  not  in  view  of  the  deductions  of  human  reason,  or 
in  the  Hght  of  conclusions  reached  by  the  processes  of  a 
speculative  phOosophy,  but  upon  that  simple,  yet  subHme, 
basis,  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord  God." 

The  design  of  Revelation  is  summed  up  essentially  in  the 
Johannean  statement,  "  these  things  are  xoritten  that  ye  might 
believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  and  that  be- 
lieving ye  might  have  life  through  His  name."  As  all  roads 
led  to  Rome,  so  all  Scripture  leads  to  Christ.  The  poetry, 
the  prophecy,  the  precepts,  the  biography,  the  history  of  the 
Bible,  find  their  true  centrality  in  Him  who  was  at  once  dust 
and  Divinity,  the  Workman  of  Nazareth,  the  Prophet  of 
Galilee,  '  The  Lamb  of  God  which  taketh  away  the  sin  of 
the  world.'  The  final  end  and  ultimate  design  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures  are  "  to  make  wise  unto  salvation,  through  faith 
which  is  in  Christ  Jesus  ";  hence  it  is  your  business,  my  dear 
brother,  from  the  Word  written  to  educe  the  Word  Incarnate, 
and  I  beg  you  to  so  present  Jesus  Christ  to  all  who  come 
to  you  for  instruction,  that  they  may  go  from  your  class-room 
to  their  great  life-work,  not  only  impressed  with  an  abiding 
sense  of  the  matchless  beauty  and  the  mighty  power  of  that 
Divine  Saviour  concerning  whom  the  Scriptures  so  abun- 
dantly testify,  but  also,  and  as  the  normal  outcome  of  your 
teachings,  with  a  fixed  determination  "to  know  nothing 
among  men  save  Jesus  Christ  and  Him  crucified." 

But  Paul  forewarns  "  of  things  hard  to  be  understood,"  of 
problems  which  must  perplex  the  most  acute  mind  and  defy 
the  gi-asp  of  the  most  profound  intellect.     Fui-thermore,  in 


136  APPENDIX. 

the  interpretation  of  the  Word,  conflicting  views  respecting 
the  exact  significance  of  the  revelation  will  arise.  Who  shall 
decide  when  learned  doctors  disagree  ?  To  whom  shall  the 
ultimate  appeal  be  taken  ?  Manifestly  to  the  Spirit  of  the 
Living  God  by  whom  the  declaration  was  prompted,  and  to 
whom  the  meaning  is  clear  ;  hence,  I  charge  you, 

Secondly,  Seek  the  aid  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  your  arduous 
and  responsible  work. 

I  attempt  no  solution  of  the  mooted  question  as  to  whether 
our  Lord's  promise  that  the  Holy  Ghost  should  lead  believers 
in  "  the  way  of  all  truth,"  was  restricted  to  the  Apostohc 
College,  and  was  literally  fulfilled  in  the  written  revelation, 
or  whether  it  pertains  to  beUevers  in  all  time. 

But  the  Scriptures  most  clearly  requke  that  all  behevers 
should  "  live  in  the  Spirit,"  "  walk  in  the  Spmt,"  "  be  filled 
with  the  Spirit,"  Christian  consciousness  bears  witness  that 
the  abiding  presence  of  the  Spirit  begets  deep  and  vital 
spirituality,  and  Christian  experience  abundantly  confirms 
the  assertion  that  vital  spirituality  ensures  a  large  insight  of 
that  truth  which  must  be  spiritually  discerned.  A  willing- 
ness to  do  God's  will  must  precede  the  knowledge  of  the 
doctrine,  and  this  willingness  of  mind  and  heart  must  be  be- 
gotten by  the  Holy  Ghost.  Put  peculiar  honor  upon  the 
Divine  Spirit  and  He  will  put  peculiar  honor  upon  you  and 
your  work.  He  will  open  your  eyes  to  behold  the  wondrous 
things  in  God's  law  ;  He  will  give  you  the  witness  of  His 
presence  in  your  own  soul,  and  wiU  enable  you,  in  all  meek- 
ness and  humility,  yet  with  the  highest  Christian  positiveness, 
to  say  :  I  know  whom  and  what  and  why  I  have  believed, 
and  am  persuaded  that  my  confidence  rests  not  upon  the 
wisdom  of  man,  but  upon  the  wisdom  of  God, 

And  as  you  thus  teach  the  Word  of  God  under  the  guid- 
ance of  the  Spii'it  of  God  ;  as  day  by  day  you  present  the 
truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus  to  those  who  are  to  preach  a  cruci- 
fied Redeemer  to  dying  men,  may  the  Lord  bless  you  and 
keep  you  ;  may  He  equip  you  for  duty,  help  you  in  the  dis- 


APPENDIX.  137 

charge  of  it,  and  when  your  gi-eat  work  is  finished  may  His 
"  "Well  done  "  be  pronounced  upon  His  "  good  and  faithful 
servant." 

m. 

RESOLUTIONS   OF  THE   BOARD   OF  DIRECTORS   SUSTAINrNG   DR.  BRIQGS, 
AS   PASSED    UNANIMOUSLY    SIAY    19,  1891. 

Resolvid,  That  this  Board  has  listened  with  satisfaction  to 
the  categorical  repUes  rendered  by  Dr.  Briggs  to  the  questions 
submitted  to  him,  and  that  it  trusts  that  the  manner  in  which 
he  has  therein  dealt  with  the  points  that  are  in  dispute  will 
oper&te  to  correct  the  misapprehensions  that  are  so  widely 
current,  and  to  quiet  the  disturbed  condition  of  mind  in 
which,  as  a  communion,  we  are  so  unhappily  involved. 

Resolved,  The  Directors  of  the  Union  Theological  Seminary 
desire  to  express  to  Professor  Briggs  their  high  appreciation 
of  his  Christian  courtesy  in  the  consultations  which  he  has 
had  with  the  Committee  of  Inquiry  in  reference  to  the  trying 
questions  now  under  consideration. 

They  vnU  stand  by  him  heartily  on  the  ground  of  this  re- 
port, and  affectionately  commend  him  to  the  leading  of  a 
common  Master,  having  perfect  confidence  in  his  honesty  of 
purpose. 

E.  M.  EoNasLEY,  John  Crosby  Brown, 

Recorder.  Vice-President. 

New  York,  May  19,  1891. 

IV. 

STATEMENT   OF   THE   FACULTY   OF   UNION   THEOLOGICAL    SElvn\ARY. 

In  view  of  the  general  comment  and  discussion  called 
forth  by  the  recent  Inaugural  Address  of  Professor  Charles 
A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  the  undersigned,  members  of  the  Faculty 
of  Union  Theological  Seminary,  deem  it  their  duty  to  make 
the  following  statement  : 

With  the  conviction  that  Christian  coui'tesy,  modesty,  and 
mutual  respect  for  difference  of  opinion  should  characterize 


138  APPENDIX. 

theological  controversy,  we  distinctly  recognize  and  depre- 
cate the  dogmatic  and  irritating  character  of  certain  of  Dr. 
Briggs'  utterances  in  his  Inaugural  and  in  others  of  his 
writings  :  while,  on  the  other  hand,  we  do  not  recognize, 
even  in  these,  any  wai'rant  for  persistent  misrepresentations 
of  his  views,  and  for  the  style  and  temper  in  which  he  has  in 
many  cases  been  assailed. 

L — The  views  propounded  by  Dr.  Briggs  in  his  Inaugural  are 

not  new. 

They  have  all  been  stated  by  him  in  one  or  another  of  his 
published  works,  in  articles  in  the  Presbyterian  Bevieiv,  dur- 
ing his  ten  years'  editorship,  and  in  more  recent  contribu- 
tions to  other  periodicals.  Moreover,  for  the  past  ten  years, 
Dr.  Briggs  has  been  teaching  Biblical  Theology  in  the 
Seminary,  and  has  been  expounding  to  successive  classes  of 
students  the  statements  for  which  he  is  now  arraigned.  The 
present  excitement  is,  as  we  believe,  due,  largely,  to  the  tone 
of  the  Inaugural  Address,  to  certain  unguarded  expressions, 
and  to  an  impression  that  the  transfer  of  the  author  to  the 
Chair  of  Biblical  Theology  would  be  subject  to  the  veto  of 
the  General  Assembly. 

n. — The  address  contains,  in  our  judgment,  nothing  ivhich  can 
be  fairly  construed  into  heresy  or  departure  from  the  West- 
minster Confession,  to  which  Dr.  Briggs  honestly  subscribed 
at  his  recent  inauguration. 

(a).  His  words  concerning  "  Bibliolatry  "  are  not  aimed  at 
humble  and  devout  reverence  for  the  Word  of  God,  but  at 
the  error,  rebuked  by  the  Apostle  Paul,  of  revering  "  the 
letter  "  above  "  the  spirit." 

(6).  Dr.  Briggs  declares  that,  conjointly  with  the  Bible, 
the  Church  and  the  Reason  are  sources  of  authority  in  re- 
ligion. He  uses  the  term  "reason"  as  embracing  the  con- 
science and  the  religious  feeling.  We  object  to  the  term 
"  sources,"  since  there  is  but  one  source  of  divine  authority 
— God  himself.     We  prefer  to  say  that  the  Bible,  the  Church, 


APPENDIX.  139 

and  the  Reason  are  media  and  vehicles  through  which  we 
recognize  and  receive  the  divine  authority.  This  is  the 
generally-accepted  Protestant  position.  Eveiy  Church  in 
Christendom  admits  that  the  Church  is  a  medium  of  divine 
authority. 

The  Confession  of  Faith  declares  that  "  unto  the  cathohc, 
visible  Church,  Christ  hath  given  the  ministry,  oracles,  and 
ordinances  of  God." 

That  the  reason,  in  the  broad  sense  in  which  it  is  explained 
by  Dr.  Briggs,  is  also  an  organ  to  and  through  which  the 
divine  authority  is  conveyed,  is  assumed  in  Scripture  and  in 
the  Confession,  and  is  the  necessary  postulate  of  a  divme^ 
revelation  to  man.  It  is  the  only  point  in  the  natural  maa 
to  which  the  qualities  of  God's  character,  the  operations  of 
His  power,  and  the  right-reasonableness  of  His  claims  can 
appeal :  and  it  is  distinctly  declared  and  assumed  by  St. 
Paul  to  be  the  recipient  of  such  appeals  ;  to  be  the  subject 
of  the  divine  Spirit's  illumination  ;  and  to  become  thus  the 
proper  instrument  for  discerning,  comj^aring,  and  judging 
spu'itual  truth.  If  the  reason  has  no  such  function  in  re- 
ligion, it  is  supei'fluous  to  assert  that  "  Scripture  is  profitable 
for  teaching,  for  discipline,  and  for  upbuilding  in  righteous- 
ness." Spiritual  righteousness  implies  an  intelligent  and 
rational  perception  and  reception  of  the  law  and  truth  of 
God.  The  living  sacrifice  which  is  "holy  and  acceptable 
unto  God "  is  a  "rational service." 

But  Dr.  Briggs  does  not,  with  the  Romanist,  exalt  the 
Church  above  the  Bible  and  the  Reason.  He  does  not,  with 
the  Rationahst,  place  the  Reason  above  the  Bible  and  the 
Church.  Neither  does  he,  as  has  been  often  charged,  co- 
ordinate the  three  sources.  His  position  is  the  Protestant 
and  the  Presbji;erian  position,  assumed  in  his  subscription  to 
the  declaration  of  the  Confession,  that  the  Scriptures  are 
"  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice,"  and  asserted 
in  his  address  in  the  words  :  "  Protestant  Christianity  builds 
its  faith  and  Hfe  on  the  divine  authority  contained  in  the 


140  APPENDIX. 

Scriptures."  That  Protestant  Christianity  too  often  depre- 
ciates the  Church  and  the  Reason  is  an  entirely  distinct 
statement,  involving  a  question  of  fact ;  and  the  statement 
and  its  discussion  in  no  way  affect  Dr.  Briggs'  endorse- 
ment of  the  Protestant  doctrine  of  the  supreme  authority  of 
Scrij^ture. 

To  assert,  as  has  been  so  often  done,  that  Dr.  Briggs  is 
aiming  to  undermine  the  divine  authority  of  Scriptiu*e,  is 
preeminently  unfair.  Not  only  this  Inaugural,  but  all  his 
published  writings,  teem  with  the  most  positive  and  uncom- 
proniising  expressions  of  love  and  reverence  for  the  Bible, 
f  (c).  The  consistency  <f  Dr.  Briggs'  position  as  to  the  supreme 
authority  and  divine  quality  of  Holy  Scripture,  is  in  no  ivay 
affected  by  his  views  of  the  nature  of  Inspiration. 

While  asserting  the  plenary  inspiration  of  Scripture,  he 
denies  that  inspiration  involves  absolute  inerrancy — literal, 
verbal  accuracy,  and  perfect  correspondence  of  minor  details. 

In  this  view  there  is  nothing  original  or  new.  It  is  the 
view  of  Calvin,  and  of  an  overwhelming  majority  of  Prot- 
estant divines  in  Europe  and  America.  It  was  propounded 
at  least  eight  years  ago  by  Dr.  Briggs  in  his  "Biblical 
Study." 

Inspiration,  in  the  sense  of  literal  inerrancy,  is  nowhere 
claimed  for  Scripture  by  Scripture  itself. 

It  is  contradicted  by  the  contents  of  Scripture  in  the  form 
in  which  we  have  it.  It  involves,  logically,  a  minute,  specific 
divine  superintendence  of  each  detail  of  the  entire  process 
of  transmission — copying,  translating,  printing — and  the  pre- 
vention of  all  errors.  It  confronts  those  who  maintain  it  not 
only  with  discrepancies  of  statement  in  the  present  text,  but 
with  the  innumerable  textual  variations  in  the  Hebrew  and 
Greek  Bibles,  and  the  variations  between  the  Hebrew  and 
the  Sei)tuagint.  To  meet  these  facts  with  the  assertion  of 
the  inerrancy  of  the  original  autographs,  is  to  beg  the  whole 
question  in  dispute,  to  lay  down  a  purely  arbitrary,  a  priori 
liypothesis,  and  to  introduce  into  the  discussion  an  entirely 


APPENDIX.  141 

irrelevant  factor,  seeing  that  the  errors  and  discrepancies  re- 
main and  the  original  autogi'aphs  cannot  be  recovered. 

To  make  the  inspiration  of  Scripture  turn  upon  verbal  in- 
errancy is  to  commit  the  Church  to  an  utterly  untenable 
position,  and  to  place  her  apologists  at  the  mercy  of  cavillers 
who  are  only  too  glad  to  evade  broader  and  deeper  issues 
and  to  shift  the  discussion  to  the  region  of  mere  verbal  de- 
tails, where  they  are  sure  to  have  the  best  of  the  argument. 

Dr.  Briggs  holds  and  teaches  the  doctrine  of  the  divine  in- 
spiration, infallibility,  and  authority  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  in 
aU  matters  of  Christian  faith  and  duty,  which  is  all  that  any 
evangelical  divine  is  bound  to  maintain  on  that  subject. 
The  Westminster  and  other  Confessions  of  Faith  clearly  and 
strongly  assert  the  fact  of  divine  inspiration,  but  wisely  ab- 
stain from  defining  the  mode  and  degrees  of  divine  inspiration. 
The  former  is  a  matter  of  faiih,  the  latter  of  human  theory, 
on  which  there  must  be  Hberty  if  there  is  to  be  any  progress. 
To  impose  upon  a  Christian  teacher  any  particular  theory  of 
inspiration  not  sanctioned  by  the  Bible  itself,  is  tyranny. 

{d).  Dr.  Briggs  is  further  charged  with  a  departure  from 
the  Westminster  Eschatology  in  teaching  progressive  sanctiji- 
cation  after  death. 

While  we  are  not  to  be  understood  as  accepting  or  endors- 
ing Dr.  Briggs'  conclusions  on  this  point,  it  is  sufficient  to 
say  that  he  is  here  in  an  open  field,  where,  having  expressly 
repudiated  the  doctrines  of  future  probation,  universal 
restoration,  and  the  Romanist  purgatory,  he  is  certainly  en- 
titled to  the  largest  liberty  in  the  attempt  to  elucidate  a 
subject  so  little  understood,  and  on  which  the  standards  are 
open  to  differences  of  interpretation.  The  phrase  "  progress- 
ive sanctification  after  death  "  admits  of  a  sound  and  ortho- 
dox interpretation  ;  but  Protestant  Eschatology,  as  defined 
in  the  Confessions  of  the  16th  and  17th  centm-ies,  is  gener- 
ally admitted  to  be  defective  and  in  need  of  fiuther  develop- 
ment within  the  limits  of  that  caution  and  reserve  imposed 
by  the  comparative  silence  of  Scripture  on  that  mysterious 


142  APPENDIX. 

period  between  death  and  resurrection.  In  the  words  of  the 
late  Henry  B.  Smith,  written  not  long  before  his  death  : 
"  "What  Reformed  Theology  has  got  to  do  is  to  Christologize 
predestination  and  decrees,  regeneration  and  sanctification, 
the  doctrine  of  the  Church  and  the  whole  of  Eschatology." 

III.  After  years  of  familiar  acquaintance  with  Dr.  Briggs 
and  his  teaching,  we  are  moved  to  utter  our  emphatic  pro- 
test against  the  spirit  and  language  with  which,  in  so  many 
cases,  he  has  been  assailed.  If,  in  any  of  his  writings.  Dr. 
Briggs,  as  is  charged,  has  wantonly  offended  the  honest  con- 
victions of  good  men,  or  has  in  any  other  way  sinned  against 
the  ethical  code  of  Christian  scholarship  laid  down  in  the 
New  Testament,  it  is  not  our  business  to  defend  him  therein. 
He  must  answer  for  it  to  his  own  conscience  and  to  God. 
But  in  the  public  discussion  of  matters  of  opinion,  it  is  nei- 
ther right  nor  decent  that  an  earnest,  learned,  devoted  scholar 
and  faithful  teacher,  even  though  mistaken,  should  be  at- 
tacked with  virulence,  contemj)tuous  flippancy,  and  imputa- 
tions of  unworthy  motive.  In  too  many  instances  it  seems 
to  have  been  assumed  that  all  the  sacredness  of  personal  con- 
viction is  upon  one  side  ;  that  a  higher  critic  can  have  no 
convictions  or  rights  which  the  lower  critic  or  the  uncritical 
censor  is  bound  to  respect ;  and  that  the  fact  of  his  differing 
with  them  justifies  his  opponents  in  laying  aside  in  discus- 
sion the  character  of  Christian  gentlemen. 

We  know  Dr.  Briggs  to  be  an  earnest  Christian,  a  devout 
student  of  the  Bible,  an  indefatigable  teacher  and  worker, 
and  one  who  holds  the  standards  of  the  Church  with  an  in- 
telligence based  on  an  exhaustive  study  of  their  history  and 
literature.  The  numerous  testimonies  of  his  students  during 
seventeen  years  prove  that  he  inspires  them  with  a  deep 
reverence  and  enthusiasm  for  the  Bible. 

In  like  manner  we  protest  against  the  matter  and  temper 
of  the  assaults  on  Union  Seminary.  By  its  history  of  over 
half  a  century,  by  the  character,  standing,  and  services  of  its 
graduates,  and  by  the  amount  and  value  of  its  contributions 


APPEITDIX.  143 

to  Christian  Literature,  this  Institution  should  be  insured 
against  such  assaults.  Its  value  to  the  Presb3i;erian  Church 
needs  no  demonstration.  From  the  days  of  Edward  Robin- 
son, the  pioneer  of  Palestine  exploration  and  the  founder  of 
American  Biblical  Lexicography,  Union  Seminar}'  has  stead- 
ily pressed  forward  on  the  lines  of  advanced  Biblical  study. 
Its  Professors,  in  subscribing  to  the  Westminster  standards, 
have  always  been  understood  to  do  so  with  the  concession  of 
that  measure  of  freedom  which  is  the  right  of  every  Chris- 
tian scholar.  They  honor  the  venerable  Confessions  of  past 
ages,  but  they  place  the  Bible  above  the  Confessions,  and 
hold  themselves  bound,  by  their  loyalty  to  Christ  and  to  His 
Church,  to  follow  the  truth  whithersoever  it  may  lead  them. 
We  assert  and  must  insist  upon  the  liberty  exercised  by 
the  Reformers  and  by  the  early  Chiirch,  to  discuss  the 
Scriptures  freely  and  reverently  and  to  avail  ourselves  of  all 
the  light  which  may  be  thrown  upon  them  from  any  source. 
It  is  in  the  interest  of  God's  truth  to  set  forth  Scripture  as 
it  is,  and  not  to  expose  its  friends  and  teachers  to  humilia- 
tion and  defeat  by  claiming  for  it  what  cannot  be  substan- 
tiated. In  the  Avords  of  Ullmann,  "  'Not  Jixedness  nor  revolu- 
tion, but  evolution  and  reform,  is  the  motto  for  our  times." 
We  maintain  that  human  conceptions  of  the  Bible  and  of 
its  inspired  teachings  are  subject  to  revision.  To  grasp  the 
results  of  deeper  research,  and  to  apply  them  with  caution, 
reverence,  and  boldness  to  the  examination  of  Scripture  is 
not  only  our  privilege,  it  is  our  solemn  duty  in  the  discharge 
of  the  sacred  trust  committed  to  us  by  Christ  and  His 
Church.  More  light  is  yet  to  break  from  God's  Word.  We 
would  be  found  ever  upon  the  watch-towers  to  catch  and  to 
transmit  its  rays.  No  theological  school  can  take  any  other 
attitude  without  neglecting  its  duty  to  the  present  age  and 
losing  its  hold  upon  the  rising  generation  of  Biblical  students. 
That  such  a  method  may  dissipate  or  modify  certain  tradi- 
tional views  as  to  the  origin  or  date  of  the  Books  of  Scrip- 
tiu'e  ;  that  it  may  expose  and  correct  certain  long-established 


144  APPENDIX. 

errors  of  interpretation  ;  that  it  may  modify  certain  theo- 
logical dogmas,  is  only  what  is  to  be  expected  from  similar 
results  in  the  past.  But  we  have  no  fear  for  the  Bible. 
The  Word  of  God  wiU  come  forth  from  the  fire  of  reverent 
criticism  as  fine  gold,  with  a  new  accretion  of  testimony  to 
its  divine  origin,  and  a  new  power  of  appeal  to  the  world. 

(Signed), 

Thomas  S.  Hastings  (President), 
Philip  Schaff, 
George  L.  Prentiss, 
Marvin  R.  Vincent. 

(Professor  Francis  Brown  is  at  Oxford,  superintending  the  publica- 
tion of  his  Hebrew  Lexicon.) 


APPENDIX.  146 


V. 


FURTHER  ABOUT  THE  GIFTS  OF  GOVERNOR  MORGAN  AND  MR. 
JAMES  BROWN. 

Since  this  pamphlet  was  printed  some  facts  relating  to 
Mr.  James  Brown's  benefactions  to  Union  Seminary  have 
come  to  my  knowledge,  which,  in  justice  to  the  memory  of 
that  excellent  man,  should  be  given  to  the  public.  I  de- 
sire, at  the  same  time,  to  add  a  word  to  what  has  been  said 
already  respecting  the  motives  which  prompted  Governor 
Morgan's  gifts.  In  a  letter  to  Mr.  John  Crosby  Brown  full 
and  explicit  testimony  on  this  point  is  given  by  Mr.  Henry 
Day.     Here  are  some  passages  from  this  letter : 

Governor  Morgan's  interest  in  Union  Seminary  arose  as 
follows  :  I  was  consulting  with  him  about  his  will  and  knew 
something  of  his  views  in  regard  to  charities.  I  then  advised 
Dr.  Adams  to  call  on  Governor  Morgan  and  lay  before  him 
the  needs  of  the  Seminary.  This  he  did.  The  Governor 
then  consulted  me  with  regard  to  the  institution.  I  stated 
all  the  facts  about  it,  but  made  no  mention  of  the  arrange- 
ment with  the  General  Assembly,  of  which  I  myself  was  not 
then  aware,  and  am  sure  he  also  had  no  knowledge.  He 
finally  concluded  to  give  the  Seminary  one  himdred  thousand 
dollars,  and  requested  me  to  draft  a  letter  expressing  the 
terms  on  which  the  gift  was  bestowed.  This  I  did.  The 
only  wish  he  expressed  in  regard  to  it  was  that  the  principal 
should  be  used  in  erecting  a  library  building,  and  the  in- 
come, if  any,  should  be  applied  to  the  improvement  of  the 
library.  The  views  controlling  him  were  that  a  seminary  lo- 
cated in  a  great  city  afforded  the  students  better  facilities 
for  practical  training  for  Christian  work  than  seminaries  lo- 
cated in  smaller  towns,  and  that  Union  Seminary  should  have 
the  finest  site  in  New  York. 


146  APPENDIX. 

Without  quoting  further  from  Mr.  Day's  very  valuable 
letter,  it  is  enough  to  say  that  the  motives  which  influenced 
Governor  Morgan  were  largely  the  very  ones  that  actuated 
Mr.  Brown. 

In  the  so-called  "  Memorandum  of  Facts,"  etc.,  prepared 
by  John  J.  McCook,  a  Commissioner  from  the  Presbytery 
of  New  York  to  the  Assembly  at  Detroit,  and  also  in  his 
"  Remarks  "  addressed  to  that  body,  much  stress  is  laid  upon 
the  alleged  fact  that  the  Union  Theological  Seminary  has 
secured  "  enormous  endowments — such  as  the  James  Brown, 
Governor  Morgan,  and  other  funds,  amounting  to  about 
$750,000  " — in  consequence  of  its  orthodoxy  having  heen 
guaranteed  hy  the  Agreement  ^1870;  and  this  large  in- 
crease of  funds,  Mr.  McCook  contends,  is  a  good  and  valid 
consideration  binding  the  Seminary  to  what  he  terms  "  the 
contract "  between  it  and  the  General  Assembly.  He  ad- 
duces no  documentary  evidence  and  enters  into  no  details 
in  proof  of  this  assertion.  He  does,  indeed,  refer  to  certain 
provisions  of  the  constitution  of  Union  Seminary,  as  also 
to  its  annual  catalogues,  and  to  a  circular  issued  in  Janu- 
ary, 1883 ;  but  none  of  these  afford  any  adequate  ground 
for  his  assertion.  In  a  matter  so  grave  no  one  is  entitled 
to  speak,  who  cannot  speak  with  the  authority  of  positive 
and  detailed  evidence. 

Where  is  such  evidence  in  the  case  of  Mr.  James 
Beown?  It  is  very  easy  for  anybody,  whether  a  com- 
missioner to  the  General  Assembly  or  not,  to  say  what  rea- 
sons and  influences  induced  Mr.  Brown  to  interest  himself 
so  deeply  in  Union  Seminary  and  to  make  it  the  object  of 
his  munificent  gifts ;  the  vital  question  is,  does  he  say  what 
is  true  and  what  he  knows  to  be  true  ?  It  is  just  here  that 
Mr.  McCook  fails,  both  in  his  brief  and  in  his  remarks. 
He  says  about  Mr.  James  Brown  not  only  what  he  cannot 
know  to  be  true,  but  what,  as  will  now  be  shown,  is  not 


APPENDIX.  147 

true.  Mr.  Brown  never  expressed  any  doubt,  nor  is  there 
any  good  reason  for  thinking  he  ever  felt  any  doubt,  with 
regard  to  the  orthodoxy  of  Union  Seminary,  either  before 
or  after  1870.  Years  prior  to  the  reunion  he  had  been  a 
generous  friend  of  the  institution.  In  1865,  by  a  gift  of 
$15,000,  in  addition  to  another  of  $10,000  by  his  brother, 
John  A.  Brown,  of  Philadelphia — a  man  like-minded  with 
himself — ^he  endowed  the  chair  of  Hebrew  and  Cognate 
Languages.  From  this  time  on  his  interest  in  the  Seminary 
grew  ever  stronger  and  deeper.  In  January,  1870,  he  gave 
$30,000  toward  the  new  endowment,  being  a  part  of  the 
great  Five  MilHon  Memorial  Fund.  And  then,  in  1873, 
his  various  donations  culminated  in  the  splendid  gift  of 
$300,000,  by  which  the  endowment  of  every  chair  in  the 
Seminary  was  raised  —  some  from  $25,000,  some  from 
$50,000  or  less— to  $80,000.  This  was  perhaps  the  most 
wise  and  considerate,  as  it  was  the  largest,  benefaction  to 
the  institution  up  to  that  time. 

But  while  Mr.  McCook  fails  to  adduce  any  proper  evi- 
dence, either  documentary  or  oral,  of  his  assertion  respect- 
ing the  supposed  motives  which  prompted  Mr.  Brown's 
gifts  to  Union  Seminary,  it  is  not  for  lack  of  evidence,  clear 
and  unmistakable,  as  to  the  real  motives  of  those  noble  bene- 
factions. The  story  of  what  Mr.  Brown  did  for  Union 
Seminary  forms  one  of  the  most  striking  and  beautiful  epi- 
sodes in  all  its  varied  history.  The  institution  owed  to  him 
several  hundred  thousand  dollars,  but  it  owed  him  some- 
thing far  more  precious  than  money — I  mean  the  inestima- 
ble blessing  of  having  William  Adams  as  its  President  and 
one  of  its  teachers  during  the  last  seven  years  of  his  life. 
Dr.  Hitchcock,  in  his  address  at  the  dedication  of  the  new 
buildings  on  Park  Avenue,  thus  refers  to  this  auspicious 
event : 

The  administration  of  Dr.  Adams  came  upon  us  like  a 


148  APPENDIX. 

burst  of  sunsbine.  He  liad,  of  course,  first  of  all,  to  take  care 
of  his  own  department  of  Sacred  Rhetoric,  which  he  handled 
with  all  the  versatility  and  freshness  of  early  manhood.  To 
this  he  added  the  toils  and  cares  of  an  ofi&ce  which  had  lain 
dormant  for  thirty  years.  The  whole  institution  was  toned 
up.  Professors  and  students,  equally  and  all,  felt  the  mag- 
netism of  his  courtly  and  stimulating  presence.  On  all  pub- 
lic occasions  he  was  our  ornament  and  pride.  In  all  the  dry 
details  of  our  daily,  weeldy,  and  monthly  routine  of  work,  he 
was  a  model  of  punctuality,  precision,  and  thoroughness.  He 
possessed  in  an  eminent  degree  what  I  will  venture  to  call 
the  institutional  instinct  and  habit.  He  was  a  genuine  Uni- 
versity man:  always  promptly  in  his  place,  and  always  ready 
for  his  work.  He  also  believed  in  new  departures.  At  an 
early  date  our  course  of  study  was  carefully  revised  in  the 
interest  of  a  severer  disciphne.  During  the  first  period  of 
our  history,  and  some  way  on  into  the  second  period,  there 
had  been  only  two  lectures  a  day,  and  these  were  between  the 
hours  of  four  and  six  in  the  afternoon,  partly  for  the  conven- 
ience of  such  as  were  supporting  themselves  by  outside  work. 
Some  time  before,  the  lectures  had  been  pushed  back  an  hour; 
and  now  we  added  a  morning  lecture  at  eleven  o'clock,  for  the 
expressed  purpose  of  bringing  outside  work  within  the  nar- 
rowest limits  possible.  "With  Dr.  Adams  originated  our  two 
scholastic  Fellowships,  which  have  done  so  much  for  the 
higher  grade  of  service  in  our  colleges  and  seminaries.  He 
secured  for  us  in  1874  our  present  Treasurer — Ezra  Munson 
Kingsley — who  seems  now  so  indispensable,  that  we  wonder 
how  we  ever  got  on  without  him In  1875  Dr.  Ad- 
ams procured  the  means  of  renovating  our  old  buildings  and 
erecting  a  new  one,  in  the  expectation  of  holding  on  indefi- 
nitely to  the  old  location.  It  was  Governor  Morgan's  gift  on 
the  29th  of  March,  1880,  of  $100,000— partly  for  books  and 
partly  for  a  fire-proof  building — which  suddenly  changed 
all  that.  Then  our  President  began  to  look  about  for  an- 
other site.      Soon  after,  at  his  summer  home  on  Orange 


APPENDIX.  149 

Mountain,  in  New  Jersey — looking  off  upon  the  sea,  looking 
up  into  the  sky — on  the  last  day  of  August,  1880,  the  throb- 
bing, busy  pulse  stood  still.  Of  fifty  years  of  signal  service, 
the  last  seven  had  been  the  golden  autumn  of  his  life. 

To  Mr.  James  Brown,  I  repeat,  Union  Seminary  owes  it 
that  Dr.  Adams  spent  the  golden  autumn  of  his  eminently 
useful  life  in  her  service.  And  Mr.  Brown  fully  compre- 
hended the  nature  and  extent  of  the  blessing.  Nor  is  the 
secret  of  his  wise  forecast  far  to  seek.  Mr.  Brown  (to  bor- 
row the  words  of  Dr.  Hitchcock  concerning  him)  "  was  a 
man  of  rare  qualities,  in  most  symmetrical  combination. 
With  a  judgment  seldom  at  fault,  strong  of  will,  tender  in 
his  domestic  relations,  profoundly  religions,  no  act  of  his 
life  was  ever  challenged,  and  absolutely  no  shadow  darkens 
his  memory.  In  the  year  1854  a  terrible  affliction  befell 
hi)n.  A  son,  two  daughters,  a  daughter-in-law,  and  two 
grandchildren,  with  two  nurses — passengers  on  board  the 
steamer  Arctic  returning  from  Europe — perished  by  ship- 
wreck. This,  with  other  sorrows  before  and  after,  greatly 
enriched  his  religious  life."  It  was  in  the  soil  of  such  deep 
experience  that  his  interest  in  Union  Seminary  took  root, 
grew  to  strong  sympathy  with  the  spirit  and  character  of 
the  institution,  blossomed  in  various  timely  gifts,  and  at 
length  ripened  into  the  crowning  benefaction  of  18Y3. 

This  great  benefaction,  it  is  asserted,  had  been  "asked 
for  and  received  "  by  Union  Seminary  upon  the  guarantee 
of  its  orthodoxy,  through  its  relation  to  the  General  Assem- 
bly under  the  Agreement  of  1870.  This  assertion  is  based 
upon  an  entire  misapprehension  of  the  facts  in  the  case. 
Mr.  Brown's  gift  of  $300,000  was  never  "  asked  for "  at 
all.  It  was  a  purely  spontaneous  act  on  his  part.  When 
first  announced  his  purpose  was  a  complete  surprise  alike 
to  his  own  family  and  to  Dr.  Adams,  for  whom  he  cher- 
ished a  singularly  tender  and  devoted   friendship.      But 


150  APPENDIX. 

althougli  a  surprise  when  first  announced,  it  soon  became 
the  subject  of  frequent  talks  and  also  of  correspondence 
with  his  son,  Mr.  John  Crosby  Brown,  now  Vice-President 
of  the  Union  Board  of  Directors,  who  entered  with  his 
whole  heart  into  his  father's  plan,  both  with  regard  to  the 
full  endowment  of  all  the  Professorships  and  the  bringing 
of  Dr.  Adams  into  the  Faculty  of  the  Seminary.  Most  of 
the  letters  relating  to  this  matter  which  passed  between  the 
father  and  son,  as  also  those  which  passed  between  Mr. 
James  Brown  and  Mr.  John  Crosby  Brown,  on  the  one 
hand,  and  Dr.  Adams  on  the  other,  are  still  in  existence ; 
and  although  replete  with  very  interesting  details,  alike  of 
plan  and  feeling,  there  is  not  in  one  of  them  the  remotest 
allusion  to  the  "  orthodoxy  "  of  Union  Seminary  as  guar- 
anteed by  the  Agreement  of  1870.  The  author  of  the  De- 
troit "  Memorandum  "  speaks  as  if  he  had  an  intimate  ac- 
quaintance with  the  benevolent  thoughts  and  intentions  of 
Mr.  James  Brown  and  Governor  Morgan  toward  Union 
Seminary.  One  would  suppose  they  had  both  consulted 
him  before  deciding  what  they  would  do.  He  allows  no 
shadow  of  doubt  to  rest  upon  the  accuracy  of  his  informa- 
tion. This  lively  interest  of  the  Commissioner  from  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York,  in  the  motives  which  prompted 
James  Brown  and  Edwin  D.  Morgan  to  give  so  much  money 
to  Union  Seminary,  is  a  very  curious  thing.  The  devoted 
friends  of  Princeton  in  New  York  never  used  to  trouble 
themselves  about  either  the  endowments  or  the  orthodoxy 
of  this  institution.  The  wealthy  men  among  them  lavished 
their  money  with  a  munificent  hand  upon  other  public  in- 
stitutions in  New  York,  for  which  the  city  owes  them  a 
lasting  debt  of  gratitude ;  but,  so  far  as  I  know,  they  gave 
nothing  to  Union,  either  before  or  after  1870.  And  after 
1870,  at  least,  it  was  not  for  lack  of  very  earnest  personal 
appeals  from   Dr.  Adams  and  others,  soliciting  them  to 


APPENDIX.  151 

lend  a  helping  hand  to  the  worthier  equipment  of  Union 
Seminary. 

To  return  to  Mr.  Brown's  motives :  Here  is  the  testi- 
mony of  Mr.  John  Crosby  Brown,  the  one  man  living  who 
is  specially  entitled  and  best  qualified  to  bear  witness  on  the 
subject : 

The  motives  which  prompted  my  father's  gifts  to  Union 
Seminary  at  this  time,  as  I  well  know  from  frequent  conver- 
sations with  him,  were  mainly  the  following  :  (1)  Sympathy 
with  the  principles  upon  which,  and  the  objects  for  which, 
the  Seminary  was  founded.  My  father's  preference  was  de- 
cided and  often  expressed  for  what  he  conceived  to  be  the 
broader  views  and  more  hberal  instruction  enjoyed  by  the 
students  of  Union  in  comparison  with  those  afforded  the 
students  at  certain  other  well-known  seminaries  of  the 
Church.  (2)  The  conviction,  also  often  expressed,  that  a 
great  city  offered  superior  advantages  for  the  training  of 
young  men  for  the  Christian  ministry.  His  brother,  Mr. 
John  A.  Brown,  an  old  friend  and  parishioner  of  the  Rev. 
Albert  Barnes,  shared  his  views  on  both  these  points. 

The  details  connected  with  this  gift  of  $300,000  formed 
the  subject  of  many  conversations  between  my  father  and 
myself.  I  thus  became  intimately  acquainted  with  his  views 
and  the  motives  which  prompted  him,  and  am  able  to  state 
with  confidence  that  he  was  in  no  way  influenced  by  the 
Agreement  of  1870  as  affording  an  additional  guarantee  of 
the  orthodoxy  of  the  Seminary.  In  not  one  of  our  conversa- 
tions was  the  Agreement  so  much  as  mentioned  ;  nor  is  there 
an  allusion  to  it  in  the  whole  con-espondence  now  in  my  pos- 
session between  my  father  and  the  Seminary,  or  between  him 
and  Dr.  Adams,  or  in  his  letters  to  me,  or  in  any  other  letters 
bearing  upon  the  matter. 

In  view  of  these  facts  and  of  this  testimony,  it  is  easy  to 
estimate  the  value  of  Mr.  McCook's  very  confident  assertion. 


^lVlllJ^[|?MiiiM?,^ilif'  Seminary  Librari 


1    1012  01252  0674 


y 


